Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Jan 21;12(1):e002779.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2024-002779.

Machine-learning versus traditional methods for prediction of all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Machine-learning versus traditional methods for prediction of all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ammar Zaka et al. Open Heart. .

Abstract

Background: Accurate mortality prediction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is essential for mitigating risk, shared decision-making and periprocedural planning. Surgical risk models have demonstrated modest discriminative value for patients undergoing TAVI and are typically poorly calibrated, with incremental improvements seen in TAVI-specific models. Machine learning (ML) models offer an alternative risk stratification that may offer improved predictive accuracy.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched until 16 December 2023 for studies comparing ML models with traditional statistical methods for event prediction after TAVI. The primary outcome was comparative discrimination measured by C-statistics with 95% CIs between ML models and traditional methods in estimating the risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year.

Results: Nine studies were included (29 608 patients). The summary C-statistic of the top performing ML models was 0.79 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.86), compared with traditional methods 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.76). The difference in C-statistic between all ML models and traditional methods was 0.11 (p<0.00001). Of the nine studies, two studies provided externally validated models and three studies reported calibration. Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool tool demonstrated high risk of bias for all studies.

Conclusion: ML models outperformed traditional risk scores in the discrimination of all-cause mortality following TAVI. While integration of ML algorithms into electronic healthcare systems may improve periprocedural risk stratification, immediate implementation in the clinical setting remains uncertain. Further research is required to overcome methodological and validation limitations.

Keywords: Aortic Valve Stenosis; Meta-Analysis; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Translational Medical Research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Summary C-statistic (95% CI) for top-performing ML models versus top-performing traditional risk score for all-cause mortality. ACC, American College of Cardiology; GBM, Gradient Boosting Machine; LR, logistic Regression; ML, machine learning; MLP, multilayer perceptron; NIS, National Inpatient Sample; OBSERVANT, Observatoire Francais du Remplacement Valvulaire Aortique par Voie Percutanée; RF, random forest; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; TAVR, transcatheter aortic valve replacement; XGBoost, Extreme Gradient Boosting.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Central graphical abstract. PROBAST, Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool; TRIPOD, Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis.

References

    1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:e25–197. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease: Developed by the Task Force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J. 2021;43:561–632. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395. - DOI
    1. O’Brien SM, Feng L, He X, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 Adult Cardiac Surgery Risk Models: Part 2—Statistical Methods and Results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1419–28. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shahian DM, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 Adult Cardiac Surgery Risk Models: Part 1—Background, Design Considerations, and Model Development. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1411–8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.002. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources