Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Author Spotlight: Segmentation and VR for Advanced Neurovascular Interventions
Published on: April 5, 2024
Artificial Intelligence for Computer-Aided Detection in Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Applications,
1INVAMED Medical Innovation Institute, One World Trade Center, 85th Floor, 285 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10007, USA.
Background:
Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) systems are increasingly being used in endovascular practice to support time-sensitive detection, triage and prioritization tasks in imaging and procedural workflows. Despite rapid technological advancements and expanding regulatory clearances, the translation to lasting clinical benefit varies.
Objective:
This narrative review synthesizes AI-CAD applications in endovascular interventions and proposes an evaluation-oriented framework to support responsible clinical translation; this framework emphasizes detection-specific metrics, external validation, bias-aware assessment, and workflow integration.
Methods:
A structured narrative review was conducted using targeted searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore (2020-2026); this review was supported by an examination of US FDA device databases and citation tracking. Evidence was assessed using a pragmatic hierarchical classification framework based on regulatory status and validation rigor.
Results:
AI-CAD applications were mapped across four main endovascular domains: neurovascular interventions (e.g., large vessel occlusion triage), coronary interventions (CCTA-based stenosis detection and intravascular imaging support), aortic interventions/EVAR (endoleak detection and sac monitoring), and peripheral interventions (lesion detection and angiographic decision support). Across the domains, performance reporting was heterogeneous and often relied on retrospective, single-center assessments. Key barriers to clinical readiness included acquisition variability and dataset shift due to artifacts, limited multicenter validation, annotation variability, and human-AI workflow factors. Evaluation priorities included whether to assess at the lesion level or case level, false positive burden and calibration, external validation under real-world heterogeneity, and clinical impact measures such as treatment timing and procedural decision-making.
Conclusions:
AI-CAD systems hold significant potential for improving endovascular care; however, clinical readiness depends on rigorous, endovascular feature-specific assessment and transparent reporting, beyond retrospective accuracy. The proposed evidence level framework and assessment checklist provide practical tools for distinguishing mature technologies from research prototypes and guiding future validation, implementation, and post-market monitoring.
