Cosyns, Bernard

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 Aims To study the impact of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. aortic stenosis (AS) lesion severity on left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, haemodynamics, and exercise capacity. Methods and results Patients (n = 206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the heavy, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, elder, filling pressure (H2FPEF) score [0–5 (AS/HFpEF−) vs. 6–9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Mean age was 73 ± 10 years with 40% women. Twenty-eight patients had Severe AS/HFpEF+ (14%), 111 Severe AS/HFpEF− (54%), 13 Moderate AS/HFpEF+ (6%), and 54 Moderate AS/HFpEF− (26%). AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− patients, irrespective of AS severity, had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction. The pulmonary arterial pressure–cardiac output slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− (5.4 ± 3.1 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; P = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output and chronotropic reserve, with signs of right ventricular pulmonary arterial uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF− was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5 ± 3.7 vs. 15.9 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7 ± 5.5 vs. 15.2 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P = 0.6). Conclusion A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse haemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and haemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Aortic valve stenosis (AS) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) present with similar cardiac alterations, but their overlap is poorly understood.(1–3). Purpose To study left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, hemodynamics, and exercise capacity according to HFpEF status versus AS severity. Methods Patients (n=206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the H2FPEF score [0–5 (AS/HFpEF-) vs. 6–9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Results Mean age was 73±10 years with 40% women. Stratification yielded 41 AS/HFpEF+ (20%) versus 165 AS/HFpEF- (80%) and 139 Severe (67%) versus 67 Moderate (33%) AS patients. AS/HFpEF+ patients had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction compared to AS/HFpEF- patients. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure-cardiac output (mPAP/CO) slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- (5.4±3.1 vs. 3.9±2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; p = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output (CO) reserve and chronotropic incompetence, with signs of right ventricular-pulmonary arterial (RV-PA) uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5±3.7 vs. 15.9±5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; p<0.0001), but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7±5.5 vs. 15.2±5.9mL/min/kg, respectively; p = 0.6). Conclusions A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and hemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity itself.

Abstract Cardiac toxicity is one of the most concerning side effects of anti-cancer therapy. The gain in life expectancy obtained with anti-cancer therapy can be compromised by increased morbidity and mortality associated with its cardiac complications. While radiosensitivity of the heart was initially recognized only in the early 1970s, the heart is regarded in the current era as one of the most critical dose-limiting organs in radiotherapy. Several clinical studies have identified adverse clinical consequences of radiation-induced heart disease (RIHD) on the outcome of long-term cancer survivors. A comprehensive review of potential cardiac complications related to radiotherapy is warranted. An evidence-based review of several imaging approaches used to detect, evaluate, and monitor RIHD is discussed. Recommendations for the early identification and monitoring of cardiovascular complications of radiotherapy by cardiac imaging are also proposed.