Artificial Intelligence in the Autonomous Navigation of Endovascular Interventions: A Systematic Review

TL;DR

This systematic review assesses the current state of AI-driven autonomous navigation in endovascular interventions, highlighting promising potential but noting significant challenges in clinical translation and standardization.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of recent AI methods, models, and experimental setups used in autonomous endovascular navigation, emphasizing the need for standardized benchmarks.

Findings

Reinforcement learning and learning from demonstration are the primary AI models used.

Most studies used physical phantoms and in silico models, with limited in vivo testing.

Current research is at a proof-of-concept stage with low clinical evidence.

Abstract

Purpose: Autonomous navigation of devices in endovascular interventions can decrease operation times, improve decision-making during surgery, and reduce operator radiation exposure while increasing access to treatment. This systematic review explores recent literature to assess the impact, challenges, and opportunities artificial intelligence (AI) has for the autonomous endovascular intervention navigation. Methods: PubMed and IEEEXplore databases were queried. Eligibility criteria included studies investigating the use of AI in enabling the autonomous navigation of catheters/guidewires in endovascular interventions. Following PRISMA, articles were assessed using QUADAS-2. PROSPERO: CRD42023392259. Results: Among 462 studies, fourteen met inclusion criteria. Reinforcement learning (9/14, 64%) and learning from demonstration (7/14, 50%) were used as data-driven models for autonomous navigation. Studies predominantly utilised physical phantoms (10/14, 71%) and in silico (4/14, 29%) models. Experiments within or around the blood vessels of the heart were reported by the majority of studies (10/14, 71%), while simple non-anatomical vessel platforms were used in three studies (3/14, 21%), and the porcine liver venous system in one study. We observed that risk of bias and poor generalisability were present across studies. No procedures were performed on patients in any of the studies reviewed. Studies lacked patient selection criteria, reference standards, and reproducibility, resulting in low clinical evidence levels. Conclusions: AI's potential in autonomous endovascular navigation is promising, but in an experimental proof-of-concept stage, with a technology readiness level of 3. We highlight that reference standards with well-identified performance metrics are crucial to allow for comparisons of data-driven algorithms proposed in the years to come.