Mehrani, Mehdi

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.

Abstract Background The standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cigarette smoking) are known to play a major role in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite endeavors aiming at primary and secondary prevention of these risk factors, CHD has remained a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. A considerable proportion of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have no SMuRFs, the outcomes of whom following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are debated. Further, sex differences within this population have yet to be established. Purpose The present study aimed to evaluate the association between SMuRF-less status and post-PCI outcomes among patients with ACS. Further, we sought to determine possible sex differences in the post-PCI outcomes related to the SMuRF-less status. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 7847 patients with ACS who underwent PCI. The study outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The association between the absence of SMuRFs (SMuRF-less status) and outcomes among all the patients and each sex was assessed using logistic and Cox proportional hazard regressions. A separate landmark analysis with the landmark (cutoff) set at 30 days after the index procedure was performed as well. Models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular accident, previous myocardial infarction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, ejection fraction, and left main disease. Results Approximately 11% of the study population had none of the SMuRFs. The SMuRF-less and SMuRF+ groups aged 63.10 ±8.91 (85.1% males) and 62.53 ± 10.91 years (74.9% males), respectively. During 12.13 [11.99-12.36] months of follow-up, the followings were respective event numbers in the SMuRF-less and SMuRF+ groups: all-cause mortality: 35 (4.1%) and 273 (3.9%); MACCE: 99 (11.6%) and 898 (12.8%). All-cause mortality (adjusted-hazard ratio (HR): 1.01, 95%CI: 0.88-1.46, P: 0.731), and MACCE (adjusted-HR: 0.93, 95%CI:0.81-1.12, P: 0.412) did not differ between patients with and without SMuRFs (Figure 1). Sex-stratified analyses recapitulated similar outcomes between SMuRF+ and SMuRF-less men. In contrast, SMuRF-less women had significantly higher all-cause mortality (adjusted-HR:1.41, 95%CI: 1.02-3.21, P: 0.008) than SMuRF+ women (Figure 1). Notably, following landmark analyses, this significant association among women disappeared (adjusted-HR: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.41-2.59, P:0.991), implying that its significance stemmed, to some extent, from higher 30-day mortality (Figure 1,2). Conclusions Almost one in 10 patients with ACS who underwent PCI had no SMuRFs. The absence of SMuRFs did not confer any benefit in terms of in-hospital mortality, one-year mortality, and MACCE. Even worse, SMuRF-less women paradoxically had an excessive risk of one-year mortality.

AbstractBackgroundThe prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among young adults (premature ACS) has dramatically increased in recent years, especially in developing countries. Yet, the data on these patients' attributed risk factors and outcomes are inconsistent. In this study, we aimed to investigate these data in a cohort of premature ACS cases who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to older patients.HypothesisWe hypothesize that premature ACS patients undergoing PCI will exhibit different risk factor profiles and outcomes compared to non‐premature patients. specifically, we anticipate that premature patients do not necessarily have better outcomes than non‐premature.MethodsOverall, 3142 and 10 399 patients were included in premature and non‐premature groups, respectively. Patients' pre‐operative, post‐operative, and follow‐up data were retrieved retrospectively from the Tehran Heart Center PCI databank.ResultsThe mean age of premature and non‐premature cohorts was 48.39 and 67 years, respectively. Patients were predominantly male in both groups. Family history of coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, smoking, and opium addiction were more prevalent among the younger cohort. After adjustment, in‐hospital mortality in younger patients was considerably higher, with all‐cause mortality and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) exhibiting no noticeable difference among the two groups.ConclusionsRisk factor profile is different in young patients, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus, are more prevalent among older adults. Younger age is not equivalent to a better prognosis; hence, similar or even more caution should be taken into consideration regarding secondary prevention for these patients.