Sengupta, Partho P.

Abstract Valvular heart disease (VHD) remains significantly underdiagnosed and undertreated. This review examines an artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced ‘spoke–hub–node’ care model designed to improve the early detection, risk stratification, and treatment of VHD. In this model, AI tools—such as automated ECG interpretation, digital stethoscopes, and point-of-care ultrasound—facilitate decentralized screening and referral for cardiac imaging at the community level. During the transition from outpatient settings to tertiary care centres, AI-integrated echocardiography, cardiac tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging facilitate advanced diagnostic evaluation and inform procedural planning. We review emerging innovations that can enhance this model of care delivery—including unsupervised machine learning to uncover novel VHD phenotypes, generative AI for automated reporting, the use of digital twins to simulate interventions, and the integration of multiple AI agents to support heart team meetings. These advances are followed by the emerging use of AI in robotic transoesophageal and intracardiac echocardiography, as well as in fusion fluoroscopy imaging, to guide valve interventions. While outlining the challenges inherent in this rapidly evolving field, the review’s central contribution is its vision to connect the continuum—from AI-enabled community screening to personalized, image-guided therapies at tertiary care centres—offering a scalable and equitable model for VHD care.

Abstract Valvular heart disease (VHD) is emerging as the next major epidemic in cardiovascular care, driven by the ageing population. The advent of less invasive alternatives to surgery—namely, transcatheter therapies—has revolutionized patient management, while simultaneously introducing new layers of complexity. Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant promise to transform the care of patients with VHD across all dimensions, including diagnosis, prognostication, disease progression, and therapeutic decision-making. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence, and discuss the challenges, risks, and future directions associated with the integration of AI in the management of VHD.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Background— The CoreValve US High-Risk Clinical Study compared clinical outcomes and serial echocardiographic findings in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods and Results— Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR (N=747). Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure and were analyzed at a central core laboratory. Compared with SAVR patients (N=357), TAVR patients (N=390) had a lower mean aortic valve gradient, larger valve area, and less patient–prosthesis mismatch (all P <0.001), but more paravalvular regurgitation at discharge, which decreased at 1 year. SAVR patients experienced significant right ventricular systolic dysfunction at discharge and 1 month with normal right ventricular function at 1 year. One-year all-cause mortality was 14.2% for TAVR and 19.1% for SAVR patients. Preimplantation aortic regurgitation ≥mild was associated with reduced mortality hazard for both the TAVR (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.27–0.85; P =0.01) and the SAVR groups (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.32–0.87; P =0.01). Aortic regurgitation ≥mild after TAVR was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.08–3.53; P =0.03). Conclusions— In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk, TAVR was associated with better systolic valve performance, similar left ventricular remodeling, more paravalvular regurgitation, and less right ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with SAVR. Despite an overall mortality reduction for the TAVR group, ≥mild aortic valve regurgitation after TAVR was associated with an increased mortality hazard. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01240902.

Learning Objectives Analyze the clinical trial data for the treatment of breast cancer. Evaluate the risk of cardiotoxicity associated with the use of trastuzumab. Design and conduct a practical approach to managing patients with trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com.