Key result
CXR-Age links to ~58% higher 30-day mortality per year and outperforms EuroSCORE II.
Why the study?
Traditional risk models like EuroSCORE II and STS-PROM show inconsistent performance in transcatheter cohorts, and biological age may provide additional prognostic value beyond chronological age and established risk scores.
Does deep learning-derived biological age from pre-operative chest radiographs predict short-term mortality better than traditional clinical risk scores in patients undergoing structural heart disease procedures?
Cohort (n=1,269)
No
Does deep learning-derived biological age from pre-operative chest radiographs predict short-term mortality better than traditional clinical risk scores in patients undergoing structural heart disease procedures?
Odds Ratio: 1.58 (95% CI 1.27–2.12)
p-value: p=<0.001
Automated, AI-derived biological age estimation from routine pre-operative chest radiographs provides a robust and rapidly scalable prognostic tool that outperforms standard EuroSCORE II surgical risk evaluation in structural heart interventions.
May enhance preoperative risk stratification beyond EuroSCORE II in structural procedures; extends CXR-Age validation but remains hypothesis-generating pending prospective trials.
Aims Accurate risk stratification before structural heart disease interventions is essential for clinical decision-making. Traditional risk models, such as the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM), were designed for surgical patients and show inconsistent performance in transcatheter cohorts. Biological age, reflecting cumulative physiological decline, may offer prognostic value beyond chronological age and established risk scores. Methods and results In this retrospective study of 1269 patients [non-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) n = 751, TAVI n = 518] treated at the German Heart Center Munich, biological age was estimated from pre-operative chest radiographs using CXR-Age, a validated deep learning model. Analyses were conducted separately for surgical (non-TAVI) and transcatheter (TAVI) groups. For 30-day mortality, biological age outperformed EuroSCORE II in both subgroups [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): non-TAVI 0.874 vs. 0.785, P < 0.001; TAVI 0.952 vs. 0.745, P = 0.004] and remained independently predictive after adjustment [TAVI OR 1.58 per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27–2.12]. While STS-PROM was the strongest single predictor for non-TAVI patients (AUC 0.949), it was similar to EuroSCORE II for TAVI patients (AUC 0.729). Notably, patients whose biological age exceeded their chronological age by more than 10 years faced higher major complication rates (17.3% vs. 9.2%; P = 0.016). Conclusion Biological age distinguished risk across both populations, suggesting that deep learning-based biological age estimation from routine chest radiographs could serve as an automated, accessible complement to existing risk models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stambollxhiu et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Structural heart disease (n=1,269). Deep learning-derived biological age (CXR-Age) from pre-operative chest radiographs vs. Chronological age and established clinical risk scores (EuroSCORE II and STS-PROM) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (OR 1.58 per year increase, 95% CI 1.27-2.12, p=<0.001). Deep learning-derived biological age (CXR-Age) significantly outperformed EuroSCORE II for predicting 30-day mortality in both surgical (AUC 0.874 vs 0.785) and transcatheter (AUC 0.952 vs 0.745) subgroups.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: