Key result
Active workflow-integrated AI outperforms passive alerts in guiding heart failure care and treatment optimization.
Why the study?
AI is increasingly positioned to improve HF care across detection, risk stratification, and management, prompting an examination of its emerging landscape, workflow integration, and implementation from early detection through chronic care.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This review highlights that artificial intelligence tools in heart failure care are most effective when integrated into active clinical workflows that guide testing, treatment optimization, and follow-up rather than acting as passive alerts.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly positioned to improve heart failure (HF) care by predicting risk, enabling earlier disease identification, and supporting more reliable delivery of evidence-based management. Current applications span opportunistic detection for low ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction, and structural heart disease using tools such as AI-enabled electrocardiography, imaging- and electronic health record‒based risk stratification, clinician-facing decision support, remote medication titration, and wearable monitoring platforms. The strongest evidence suggests that AI is most effective when embedded into active clinical workflows that guide targeted testing, treatment optimization, and longitudinal follow-up, rather than functioning as passive alerts alone. This review examines the emerging landscape of AI-enabled HF care delivery from early detection through chronic management, with emphasis on implementation, workflow integration, and the capacity of these tools to improve diagnostic yield and ultimately scalability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pérez-Guerrero et al. (2026) conducted a review in Heart failure (including low ejection fraction, preserved ejection fraction, and structural heart disease). Artificial intelligence-enabled heart failure care delivery tools (AI-ECG, risk stratification, decision support, remote titration, wearables) vs. Passive alerts or standard care was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: