Artificial intelligence models demonstrated promising performance in predicting post-TAVR all-cause mortality (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).
Meta-Analysis (n=366,269)
Do artificial intelligence models accurately predict post-TAVR outcomes and complications in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
AI-based risk prediction models show promising performance for predicting post-TAVR complications, particularly when incorporating baseline clinical, imaging, and biomarker data.
Effect estimate: AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.82)
Background/Objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been introduced as an optimal treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis, offering a minimally invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. Predicting these outcomes following TAVR is crucial. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for improving post-TAVR outcome prediction. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to summarize the current evidence on utilizing AI in predicting post-TAVR outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to evaluate the studies focused on TAVR that applied AI methods for risk stratification. We assessed various ML algorithms, including random forests, neural networks, extreme gradient boosting, and support vector machines. Model performance metrics—recall, area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy—were collected with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect estimates. Results: We included 43 studies evaluating 366,269 patients (mean age 80 ± 8.25; 52.9% men) following TAVR. Meta-analyses for AI model performances demonstrated the following results: all-cause mortality (AUC = 0.78 (0.74–0.82), accuracy = 0.81 (0.69–0.89), and recall = 0.90 (0.70–0.97); permanent pacemaker implantation or new left bundle branch block (AUC = 0.75 (0.68–0.82), accuracy = 0.73 (0.59–0.84), and recall = 0.87 (0.50–0.98)); valve-related dysfunction (AUC = 0.73 (0.62–0.84), accuracy = 0.79 (0.57–0.91), and recall = 0.54 (0.26–0.80)); and major adverse cardiovascular events (AUC = 0.79 (0.67–0.92)). Subgroup analyses based on the model development approaches indicated that models incorporating baseline clinical data, imaging, and biomarker information enhanced predictive performance. Conclusions: AI-based risk prediction for TAVR complications has demonstrated promising performance. However, it is necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the aforementioned models in external validation datasets.
Shojaei et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=366,269). Artificial intelligence (AI) models was evaluated on All-cause mortality prediction (AUC 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). Artificial intelligence models demonstrated promising performance in predicting post-TAVR all-cause mortality (AUC 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).