Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review
===============================================================

* Ralf Martz Sulague
* Francis Joshua Beloy
* Jillian Reeze Medina
* Edward Daniel Mortalla
* Thea Danielle Cartojano
* Sharina Macapagal
* Jacques Kpodonu

## ABSTRACT

**BACKGROUND** Artificial intelligence has emerged as a tool to potentially increase efficiency and efficacy of healthcare and improve clinical outcomes. The growing body of knowledge of artificial intelligence applications in cardiac surgery necessitates evaluation of past studies to gain insights to the future direction of artificial intelligence applications in cardiac surgery. This study aims to provide a systematic review of the applications of artificial intelligence in cardiac surgery.

**METHODS** A systematic literature search on artificial intelligence applications in cardiac surgery from 2000 to 2022 was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Europe PMC, Epistemonikos, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Cambridge Core, clinicaltrials.gov, and science. Studies on the implementation of artificial intelligence applications in cardiac surgery and the provision of decision support by the application through simulating clinical decision-making processes of healthcare providers were included. Studies not in English, published only as abstracts, review papers, meta-analyses, clinical trials that were still in progress, and published study protocols were excluded. This study was registered on Prospero (CRD42022377530).

**RESULTS** A total of 42 studies were found that reported on artificial intelligence applications in cardiac surgery, all of which are cohort studies. Nine (21.43%) of the studies measured different parameters regarding cardiac surgeries in general. Meanwhile, 6 (14.29%) studies focused on Heart Transplantation (HT), 4 (9.52%) on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), 3 (7.14%) anchored on Aortic Stenosis, and another 3 (7.14%) on Perioperative Complications. Three topics had 2 (4.76%) studies dedicated to them, namely Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation (POAF), and Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). The remaining eleven studies have their own unique disease topics, procedures or surgeries in focus (n=11, 1 (2.38%), namely Postoperative Major Bleeding, Early Coronary Revascularization, Heart Valve Surgery, Isolated Mitral Valve Replacement (IMVR), Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR), Open-Chest Surgery, Infective endocarditis, Post-Operative Deterioration, Red Blood Cell Transfusion, AKI - related Hippocampal Damage, and Open-Heart Surgery. Regarding evaluation outcomes, 26 studies examined the performance, 32 studies examined clinician outcomes, and 2 studies examined patient outcomes. Of the 42 studies, only 13 were conducted in Lower- and Middle-Income Countries.

**CONCLUSION** Artificial intelligence was used to predict mortality, postoperative length of stay, and complications following cardiac surgeries. It can also improve clinicians’ medical decisions by providing better preoperative risk assessment, stratification, and prognostication. While the application of artificial intelligence in cardiac surgery has greatly progressed in the last two decades, more highly powered studies need to be done to assess challenges and to ensure accuracy and safety for use in clinical practice.

Keywords
*   artificial intelligence
*   machine learning
*   deep learning
*   cardiac surgery
*   technology

## INTRODUCTION

### AI and Cardiac surgery

With the advancement of modern technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a tool to potentially increase the efficiency and efficacy of healthcare and improve outcomes. It encompasses both machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL). In ML, certain computer algorithms are used to produce predictions or conclusions by recognizing patterns generated through the application of a mathematical algorithm model from sample data. One important example of the significance of machine learning in surgery would be predicting the probabilities of post-operative complications according to patient specific risk factors and characteristics. It would use the data to classify patients into risk strata, depending on their morbidity severity. It is able to do so with great accuracy, exceeding previous methods based on clinical standards to levels previously thought to be unachievable with conventional statistics. On the other hand, DL uses a multi-layered structure of algorithms called artificial neural networks to do tasks that machine learning cannot, making it more useful than machine learning (ML) (39,40).

There have already been a number of studies exploring real-life applications of AI in cardiac surgery including algorithms that function to aid in clinical decision making, especially in terms of cardiac function evaluation and risk stratification prior to operation. Other applications focus on aiding diagnostics and prognostication of certain complications of patients after cardiac surgery(3).

The growing body of knowledge of AI applications in cardiac surgery necessitates evaluation of past studies to gain insights to the future direction of artificial intelligence application in cardiac surgery. This study aims to provide a systematic review on the applications of AI in cardiac surgery.

## METHODS

### Search Strategies

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized in searching articles assessing and evaluating various applications of AI in cardiac surgery from 2000 to 2022. Using boolean search terms “Artificial Intelligence” OR “Machine Learning” AND “Cardiac Surgery”, a thorough review of studies was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Europe PMC, Epistemonikos, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Cambridge Core, clinicaltrials.gov, and science.gov. Duplicate articles from different databases were then excluded after a preliminary search. Other additional studies were identified by looking through the references of the articles that were already included. This systematic review was registered on Prospero (CRD42022377530).

### Eligibility Criteria

Articles were incorporated into the review if it included the following conditions: 1) Implementation of an AI application with patient or health care providers in a real-life clinical setting, and 2) Provision of decision support by the AI application through emulating clinical decision-making processes of health care providers (eg, medical image interpretation and clinical risk assessment). All cohorts and randomized control trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. The studies that were included had to be in English. Studies that had only been published as abstracts, review papers, meta-analyses, clinical trials that were still in progress, and published study protocols were not included. Other exclusion criteria are detailed in Figure 1.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/10/19/2023.10.18.23297244/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/19/2023.10.18.23297244/F1)

Figure 1. 
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

### Data Extraction

After collating all the studies, information from the articles were extracted. These were primarily the characteristics of the studies, the features of the AI applications, and the key outcomes evaluated. The data was then organized in a table and trends or themes were analyzed.

## RESULTS

### Overview

Our initial search of the databases returned a total of 1124 journal articles (420 from PubMed, 190 from Google Scholar, 153 from Web of Science, 148 CINAHL, 130 from EMBASE, 69 from Europe PMC, 6 from Epistemonikos, 3 from science.gov, 2 from clinicaltrials.gov, 2 from Cambridge Core, and 1 from Cochrane Central). Duplicates were then identified and 336 studies were excluded. The titles, abstracts, and manuscripts were screened and filtered which excluded 755 studies. 9 relevant studies were identified via snowballing. Thus, 42 journal articles met the inclusion criteria and are included in this review (Figure 1).

### Study Characteristics

The authors, year of publication, study design, number of involved patients, and database registry and involved hospitals are summarized in Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/19/2023.10.18.23297244/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.

In regard to the study design, all 42 studies were Cohort Studies. A cohort study utilizes a comparison method for a particular outcome in 2 or more groups, with each cohort having similar characteristics but would differ in certain aspects. Of the 42 studies, Two (4.8%) studies have less than 50 patients analyzed. Ten (22.8%) studies have a population of 50-100 patients, while 18 (42.8%) studies have a wider range of 1000-5000 individuals included. Meanwhile, 11 (26.1%) studies had a larger scaled population of 5000-20,000 patients, and only a single (2.3%) study had more than 240,000 worth of data analyzed.

According to the New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2022-2023, for the current 2023 fiscal year, low-income economies are defined as those with a GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method, of $1,085 or less in 2021; lower middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between $1,086 and $4,255; upper middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between $4,256 and $13,205; high-income economies are those with a GNI per capita of $13,205 or more. Of the 42 studies, only 1 study was conducted in a Lower-Middle Income Economies, namely Iran. For the countries classified Upper-Middle Income Economies, ten studies were conducted in China, while Colombia and Brazil had conducted 1 study each. While the rest were conducted in countries with High-Income Economies, with 22 conducted in the United States, two in Austria, and one each in Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, France, and New Zealand.

### Quality Assessment

In order to evaluate the internal validity of the 42 included studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was utilized. Since all studies are cohorts, each article was evaluated using the appropriate checklist by two assessors. The total score for the cohorts ranged from 7 to 10 out of 11. Specifically, four studies reported that the source of their data did not come from the same population(4–7). Seven studies were unable to identify the confounding factors (5,8–13). Only three studies did not clearly state if exposures were measured in a valid and reliable way (4–6). Finally, all studies used proper statistical analysis, and measured their outcomes in a valid and reliable way.

### AI Application Characteristics

Among the 42 studies, the most popular ML technique was Random Forests(RF) (n=21), followed by Logistic Regression (LR) (n=13), Support Vector Machine (n=12), Artificial Neural Network (ANN) (n=10), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) (n=7). These were followed by the others such as the Naïve Bayes Model (NB) (n=5), AdaBoost (n=5), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) (n=5), Decision Tree (n=4), Gradient Boosting Machine(GBM) (n=3), K-nearest neighbours classifier (KNN) (n=3), Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) (n=3), Bagged Classification and Regression Tree (CART) (n=2), and Cox Regression Models (n=2). And the rest of the ML techniques were mentioned only in one study such as the Bag Decision Trees (BDT), Bayesian networks (BNs), Boosted Classification Trees, CatBoost ML Model, Conditional Inference Random Forest (CIRF), Deep Learning Model (CXR-CTSurgery), Dual-tree complex wavelet packet transform (DTCWPT), Extra Trees (ET), Gaussian Process (GP) regression ML algorithm, GenAlgs, Imbalanced Random Forest Classifier, Multivariate logistic regression (MLR), Random Forest Survival Models,Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), Stochastic Gradient Boosting (SGB), Stochastic Gradient Boosting (SGBT), Sun Yat-sen University Prediction Model for Infective Endocarditis, an AI software provided by Neosoft and another AI software that uses 3D echocardiography to model the aortic annulus. Overall, only one study utilized Deep Learning while the rest utilized Machine Learning.

The results also show that almost all AI applications provided decision support in Risk Analysis (n=40) mainly predicting mortality outcomes, post-operative complications, or post-operative outcomes. Only two studies looked into disease screening and triage. None of the studies delved into disease diagnosis or treatment.

On another note, of the 42 studies, 9 (21.43%) of the studies measured different parameters regarding cardiac surgeries in general. Meanwhile, 6 (14.29%) studies focused on Heart Transplantation (HT), 4 (9.52%) on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), 3 (7.14%) anchored on Aortic Stenosis, and another 3 (7.14%) on Perioperative Complications. Three topics had 2 (4.76%) studies dedicated to them, namely Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation (POAF), and Acute Kidney Injury (AKI). The remaining eleven studies has their own unique disease topics, procedures or surgeries in focus (n=11), 1 (2.38%), namely Postoperative Major Bleeding, Early Coronary Revascularization, Heart Valve Surgery, Isolated Mitral Valve Replacement (IMVR), Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR), Open-Chest Surgery, Infective endocarditis, Post-Operative Deterioration, Red Blood Cell Transfusion, AKI - related Hippocampal Damage, and Open-Heart Surgery.

### Evaluation Outcomes

As shown in Table 1, the included studies were classified into their respective type of evaluation outcomes: performance of AI applications, clinician outcomes, and patient outcomes.

#### A. Performance of AI Applications

Twenty-six studies evaluated the performance of AI applications in real-life clinical settings. Commonly used performance metrics included accuracy, area under the curve (AUC) / area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), specificity, sensitivity, True Positive Rate (TPR), False Negative Rate (FNR), positive-predictive value (PPV), and negative-predictive value (NPV), F1 score and Brier Score.

#### B. Clinician Outcomes

AI applications also affect clinician outcomes, specifically, clinician decision making, clinician workflow and efficiency, and clinician evaluations and acceptance of AI applications. In this review, thirty-two studies reported clinician outcomes of AI in cardiac surgery (4,5,7,8,10,11,13–38).

Clinicians could potentially be guided by AI applications in making better medical decisions. Eighteen studies reported that AI applications can support clinician decision making (4,7,10,13,16,17,19,21,23,24,26,28,30–33,35,38). Machine learning models improve clinician’s medical decisions by providing better preoperative risk assessment, stratification and prognostication (10,17,21,24,30–32,35,38). AI applications could also guide clinicians on how aggressive prophylactic measures are given such as increased patient monitoring or giving additional therapies (4,13,33).

Twelve studies discussed clinician efficiency (5,10,11,16,18,20,22–24,29,36,37). Machine learning was used to predict survival after heart transplantation allowing better patient selection and reducing organ wastage (18,37). AI applications could also prompt clinicians to provide timely protective strategies which will improve patient’s prognosis (29,36,39). AI applications save time significantly by optimizing risk stratification and clinical management. Alshakhs et al. (16) took advantage of machine learning to predict patients who are likely to have a longer postoperative length of stay (PLoS) to provide early psychosocial preparation to the patient and to their family. There were no studies that explored outcomes on clinician workflow.

Seven studies reported clinician evaluations and acceptance of AI applications (5,15,17,19,20,22–24,26). All of the studies stated overall positive perceptions on AI applications. Machine learning showed equal risk prediction compared to manual approaches (20,24). Two studies revealed superiority of AI applications than existing scoring tools (15,17,19,22,26). Finally, recommendations were provided on utilizing both machine learning and manual approach in combination to provide significant leaps in diagnostic and predictive capabilities of clinicians in the future (5,23).

#### C. Patient Outcomes

Only two studies reported patient outcomes. Fernandez et al. (21) incorporated intraoperative risk factors in predicting mortality following cardiac surgery and revealed results on patient mortality which revealed the following findings: (1) all deaths, regardless of cause, occurring during the hospitalization in which the operation was performed, even if after 30 days (including patients transferred to other acute care facilities); and (2) all deaths, regardless of cause, occurring after discharge from the hospital, but before the end of the thirtieth postoperative day.

Zea-Vera et al. (6) developed and validated a dynamic machine learning model to predict CABG outcomes at clinically relevant pre-and postoperative time points. Their ML predicted 30-day readmission and high cost, 2 outcomes for which no standardized regression model exists. With reduction in mortality, resource utilization is becoming an increasingly important outcome.

## DISCUSSION

### Principal Findings

Over the past decade, the rise of AI has grown dramatically in transforming the way people learn and complete tasks especially in the field of medicine and surgery. The rapid technological advances in AI particularly in ML algorithms have impacted surgical care by assisting the surgeons to make better clinical decisions in the preoperative and intraoperative phases of surgical procedures. These AI applications aim to enhance patient safety by optimizing patient outcomes and surgical decision-making. In this review, we discuss the significant advancements and promising applications of AI in cardiac surgery. The growing interest in its application to surgical practice produced the following findings.

To provide accurate analysis, we only included English–written articles discussing the actual implementation of AI in real-life clinical settings. The majority of the included papers were published between 2020 and 2022 in order to give the most recent information on the use of AI in cardiac surgery. Most of the reviewed studies utilizes a cohort study design with a database registry composed of 1000-5000 participants per study.

It is worth noting that half of the included studies were from the United States, which suggests that developed countries are in the forefront of AI application in health care. Recently, the AI algorithms were being used in analyzing factors contributing to COVID-19 mortality and detection of pathological findings (40,41). In cardiac surgery, ML algorithms were used to predict mortality, survival, postoperative length of stay, and outcomes in following cardiac surgeries such as valve replacement, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and heart transplantation (10,12,16,18,38,42). Half of the studies utilized RF as ML technique to predict mortality and outcomes after cardiac surgery. Aside from the United States, China has been making substantial use of AI in healthcare. In the review, ten studies were conducted in China, largely in specified hospitals. Due to their capacity to generate customized risk profiles, ML models have the potential to show better predictive power for risk stratification compared to clinical scores like EuroSCORE (24))

### Limitations

The quality of research in AI implementation in cardiac surgery needs to be improved. Our review lacks randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and only included cohort studies. In addition, most of the studies acquired clinical data through database registry. Consequently, additional prospective RCTs are necessary to improve the generalizability of results.

The application of AI is dependent on robust data, availability of computational ML techniques appropriate for the complex data, and validation of its clinical application. Because the availability of resources is crucial in its implementation to real-life settings, the vast majority of the included studies were done in developed countries.

#### Lack of funds

Insufficient funding poses a significant obstacle to the integration of AI in clinical practice, particularly in the field of cardiac surgery. The successful development and deployment of AI systems necessitate substantial financial resources. These include investments in infrastructure, data acquisition and management, algorithm development, and training. Unfortunately, numerous healthcare institutions encounter difficulties in allocating the required funds to support AI initiatives, given competing priorities and limited budgets(43). Insufficient financial support hampers the seamless integration of AI technologies into cardiovascular surgery practices, impeding progress and undermining the realization of their potential benefits(44).

#### Data heterogeneity and its challenges

The lack of uniformity in data collection, storage formats, and protocols across different healthcare systems poses a considerable challenge to the widespread adoption of AI in clinical practice. Data standardization is crucial for AI algorithms to effectively analyze and interpret medical information. However, healthcare institutions often employ diverse electronic health record (EHR) systems that vary in their data structures and terminologies. This lack of standardization impedes interoperability and hampers the integration of AI solutions seamlessly. Efforts are needed to establish standardized data formats and protocols, allowing AI systems to operate efficiently across different healthcare settings(45).

#### Familiarity and Trust

Familiarity and trust in AI technologies also represent potential barriers to their application in clinical practice. Healthcare professionals may exhibit reluctance or skepticism toward AI, fearing that these technologies may replace their expertise or compromise patient safety. Building trust and familiarity among healthcare providers is crucial for the successful integration of AI in cardiovascular surgery. Transparency in AI algorithms, robust validation studies, and demonstrating tangible benefits can help alleviate concerns and foster acceptance among clinicians(46).

## CONCLUSION

While the application of artificial intelligence in cardiac surgery has greatly progressed in the last two decades, more highly powered studies need to be done to assess challenges and to ensure accuracy and safety for use in clinical practice. AI may be leveraged for screening and diagnosis to facilitate timely treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

## Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

## Conflicts of Interest

None

## Funding

None

View this table:
[Supplement.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/19/2023.10.18.23297244/T2)

Supplement. AI Application Characteristics

## Acknowledgement

None

*   Received October 18, 2023.
*   Revision received October 18, 2023.
*   Accepted October 19, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Khalsa RK, Khashkhusha A, Zaidi S, Harky A, Bashir M. Artificial intelligence and cardiac surgery during COVID-19 era. J Card Surg. 2021 May;36(5):1729–33.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/JOCS.15417&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Mumtaz H, Saqib M, Ansar F, Zargar D, Hameed M, Hasan M, et al. The future of Cardiothoracic surgery in Artificial intelligence. Ann Med Surg 2012. 2022 Aug;80:104251.
    
    

3.  3.Orfanoudaki A, Dearani JA, Shahian DM, Badhwar V, Fernandez F, Habib R, et al. Improving Quality in Cardiothoracic Surgery: Exploiting the Untapped Potential of Machine Learning. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Dec;114(6):1995–2000.
    
    

4.  4.Karri R, Kawai A, Thong YJ, Ramson DM, Perry LA, Segal R, et al. Machine Learning Outperforms Existing Clinical Scoring Tools in the Prediction of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation During Intensive Care Unit Admission After Cardiac Surgery. Heart Lung Circ. 2021 Dec;30(12):1929–37.
    
    

5.  5.1.  Parolari A
    
    Allyn J, Allou N, Augustin P, Philip I, Martinet O, Belghiti M, et al. A Comparison of a Machine Learning Model with EuroSCORE II in Predicting Mortality after Elective Cardiac Surgery: A Decision Curve Analysis. Parolari A, editor. PLOS ONE. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0169772.
    
    

6.  6.Zea-Vera R, Ryan CT, Havelka J, Corr SJ, Nguyen TC, Chatterjee S, et al. Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes and Cost by Phase of Care After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Sep;114(3):711–9.
    
    

7.  7.Kim RB, Alge OP, Liu G, Biesterveld BE, Wakam G, Williams AM, et al. Prediction of postoperative cardiac events in multiple surgical cohorts using a multimodal and integrative decision support system. Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 5;12(1):11347.
    
    

8.  8.Park J, Bonde PN. Machine Learning in Cardiac Surgery: Predicting Mortality and Readmission. ASAIO J. 2022 Dec;68(12):1490–500.
    
    

9.  9.1.  Van den Eynde J
    
    Kampaktsis PN, Siouras A, Doulamis IP, Moustakidis S, Emfietzoglou M, Van den Eynde J, et al. Machine learning-based prediction of mortality after heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease: A UNOS database analysis. Clin Transplant [Internet]. 2022 Nov 9 [cited 2023 Jan 5]; Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14845](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14845)
    
    

10. 10.HosseiniNezhad M, Langarizadeh M, Hosseini S. Mortality prediction of mitral valve replacement surgery by machine learning. Res Cardiovasc Med. 2021;10(4):106.
    
    

11. 11.Li T, Yang Y, Huang J, Chen R, Wu Y, Li Z, et al. Machine learning to predict post-operative acute kidney injury stage 3 after heart transplantation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022 Dec;22(1):288.
    
    

12. 12.Hernandez-Suarez DF, Kim Y, Villablanca P, Gupta T, Wiley J, Nieves-Rodriguez BG, et al. Machine Learning Prediction Models for In-Hospital Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul;12(14):1328–38.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamludCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTIvMTQvMTMyOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzEwLzE5LzIwMjMuMTAuMTguMjMyOTcyNDQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

13. 13.1.  Raman J
    
     Chang Junior J, Binuesa F, Caneo LF, Turquetto ALR, Arita ECTC, Barbosa AC, et al. Improving preoperative risk-of-death prediction in surgery congenital heart defects using artificial intelligence model: A pilot study. Raman J, editor. PLOS ONE. 2020 Sep 4;15(9):e0238199.
    
    

14. 14.Kampaktsis PN, Siouras A, Doulamis IP, Moustakidis S, Emfietzoglou M, Van den Eynde J, et al. Machine learning-based prediction of mortality after heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease: A UNOS database analysis. Clin Transplant [Internet]. 2022 Nov 9 [cited 2023 Jan 5]; Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14845](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14845)
    
    

15. 15.Agasthi P, Ashraf H, Pujari SH, Girardo ME, Tseng A, Mookadam F, et al. Artificial Intelligence Trumps TAVI2-SCORE and CoreValve Score in Predicting 1-Year Mortality Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021 Mar;24:33–41.
    
    

16. 16.Alshakhs F, Alharthi H, Aslam N, Khan IU, Elasheri M. Predicting Postoperative Length of Stay for Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients Using Machine Learning. Int J Gen Med. 2020 Oct;Volume 13:751–62.
    
    

17. 17.Aranda-Michel E, Sultan I, Kilic A, Bianco V, Brown JA, Serna-Gallegos D. A machine learning approach to model for end-stage liver disease score in cardiac surgery. J Card Surg. 2022 Jan;37(1):29–38.
    
    

18. 18.Ayers B, Sandholm T, Gosev I, Prasad S, Kilic A. Using machine learning to improve survival prediction after heart transplantation. J Card Surg. 2021 Nov;36(11):4113–20.
    
    

19. 19.Bodenhofer U, Haslinger-Eisterer B, Minichmayer A, Hermanutz G, Meier J. Machine learning-based risk profile classification of patients undergoing elective heart valve surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Dec 1;60(6):1378–85.
    
    

20. 20.1.  Kim MC
    
    Evertz R, Lange T, Backhaus SJ, Schulz A, Beuthner BE, Topci R, et al. Artificial Intelligence Enabled Fully Automated CMR Function Quantification for Optimized Risk Stratification in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Kim MC, editor. J Intervent Cardiol. 2022 Apr 20;2022:1–9.
    
    

21. 21.Fernandes MPB,  Armengol de la Hoz M, Rangasamy V, Subramaniam B. Machine Learning Models with Preoperative Risk Factors and Intraoperative Hypotension Parameters Predict Mortality After Cardiac Surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Mar;35(3):857–65.
    
    

22. 22.Gao Y, Liu X, Wang L, Wang S, Yu Y, Ding Y, et al. Machine learning algorithms to predict major bleeding after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Jul 28;9:881881.
    
    

23. 23.Hasimbegovic E, Papp L, Grahovac M, Krajnc D, Poschner T, Hasan W, et al. A Sneak-Peek into the Physician’s Brain: A Retrospective Machine Learning-Driven Investigation of Decision-Making in TAVR versus SAVR for Young High-Risk Patients with Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis. J Pers Med. 2021 Oct 22;11(11):1062.
    
    

24. 24.Fan Y, Dong J, Wu Y, Shen M, Zhu S, He X, et al. Development of machine learning models for mortality risk prediction after cardiac surgery. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2022 Feb;12(1):12–23.
    
    

25. 25.He K, Liang W, Liu S, Bian L, Xu Y, Luo C, et al. Long-term single-lead electrocardiogram monitoring to detect new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients after cardiac surgery. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Sep 23;9:1001883.
    
    

26. 26.Hu LH, Betancur J, Sharir T, Einstein AJ, Bokhari S, Fish MB, et al. Machine learning predicts per-vessel early coronary revascularization after fast myocardial perfusion SPECT: results from multicentre REFINE SPECT registry. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 May 1;21(5):549–59.
    
    

27. 27.Kampaktsis PN, Tzani A, Doulamis IP, Moustakidis S, Drosou A, Diakos N, et al. State-of-the-art machine learning algorithms for the prediction of outcomes after contemporary heart transplantation: Results from the UNOS database. Clin Transplant [Internet]. 2021 Aug [cited 2023 Jan 5];35(8). Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14388](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.14388)
    
    

28. 28.Jiang H, Liu L, Wang Y, Ji H, Ma X, Wu J, et al. Machine Learning for the Prediction of Complications in Patients After Mitral Valve Surgery. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Dec 16;8:771246.
    
    

29. 29.Li Y, Xu J, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Jiang W, Shen B, et al. A novel machine learning algorithm, Bayesian networks model, to predict the high-risk patients with cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury. Clin Cardiol. 2020 Jul;43(7):752–61.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F10%2F19%2F2023.10.18.23297244.atom) 

30. 30. Lo Muzio FP, Rozzi G, Rossi S, Luciani GB, Foresti R, Cabassi A, et al. Artificial Intelligence Supports Decision Making during Open-Chest Surgery of Rare Congenital Heart Defects. J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 16;10(22):5330.
    
    

31. 31.Luo L, Huang S, Liu C, Liu Q, Dong S, Yue Y, et al. Machine Learning–Based Risk Model for Predicting Early Mortality After Surgery for Infective Endocarditis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Jun 7;11(11):e025433.
    
    

32. 32.Molina RS, Molina-Rodríguez MA, Rincón FM, Maldonado JD. Cardiac Operative Risk in Latin America: A Comparison of Machine Learning Models vs EuroSCORE-II. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Jan;113(1):92–9.
    
    

33. 33.Shou BL, Chatterjee D, Russel JW, Zhou AL, Florissi IS, Lewis T, et al. Pre-operative Machine Learning for Heart Transplant Patients Bridged with Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2022 Sep 19;9(9):311.
    
    

34. 34.Thalappillil R, Datta P, Datta S, Zhan Y, Wells S, Mahmood F, et al. Artificial Intelligence for the Measurement of the Aortic Valve Annulus. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Jan;34(1):65–71.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F10%2F19%2F2023.10.18.23297244.atom) 

35. 35.Truong VT, Beyerbach D, Mazur W, Wigle M, Bateman E, Pallerla A, et al. Machine learning method for predicting pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Feb;44(2):334–40.
    
    

36. 36.1.  Wong K
    
    Xue X, Chen W, Chen X. A Novel Radiomics-Based Machine Learning Framework for Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury-Related Delirium in Patients Who Underwent Cardiovascular Surgery. Wong K, editor. Comput Math Methods Med. 2022 Mar 18;2022:1–16.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2022/7401184&link_type=DOI) 

37. 37.Zhou Y, Chen S, Rao Z, Yang D, Liu X, Dong N, et al. Prediction of 1-year mortality after heart transplantation using machine learning approaches: A single-center study from China. Int J Cardiol. 2021 Sep;339:21–7.
    
    

38. 38.Agasthi P, Buras MR, Smith SD, Golafshar MA, Mookadam F, Anand S, et al. Machine learning helps predict long-term mortality and graft failure in patients undergoing heart transplant. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Dec;68(12):1369–76.
    
    

39. 39.Li T, Yang Y, Huang J, Chen R, Wu Y, Li Z, et al. Machine learning to predict post-operative acute kidney injury stage 3 after heart transplantation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022 Dec;22(1):288.
    
    

40. 40.Milam ME, Koo CW. The current status and future of FDA-approved artificial intelligence tools in chest radiology in the United States. Clin Radiol. 2022 Sep 27;S0009–9260(22)00514-1.
    
    

41. 41.Tanhaeean M, Nazari N, Iranmanesh SH, Abdollahzade M. Analyzing factors contributing to COVID-19 mortality in the United States using artificial intelligence techniques. Risk Anal Off Publ Soc Risk Anal. 2022 Dec 4;
    
    

42. 42.Kilic A, Goyal A, Miller JK, Gleason TG, Dubrawksi A. Performance of a Machine Learning Algorithm in Predicting Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Feb;111(2):503–10.
    
    

43. 43.Salna M. The Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiothoracic Surgery. J Chest Surg. 2022 Dec 5;55(6):429–34.
    
    

44. 44.Reddy CL, Mitra S, Meara JG, Atun R, Afshar S. Artificial Intelligence and its role in surgical care in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Digit Health. 2019 Dec;1(8):e384–6.
    
    

45. 45.Krajcer Z. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Historical Overview, Current Status, and Future Directions. Tex Heart Inst J. 2022 Apr 28;49(2):e207527.
    
    

46. 46.Hallowell N, Badger S, Sauerbrei A, Nellåker C, Kerasidou A. “I don’t think people are ready to trust these algorithms at face value”: trust and the use of machine learning algorithms in the diagnosis of rare disease. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 16;23(1):112.