Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39108421›Full record

ArticleJACC. Advances2024

Machine Learning Identification of Modifiable Predictors of Patient Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Mark J Russo, Sammy Elmariah, Tsuyoshi Kaneko, David V Daniels, Rajendra R Makkar, Soumya G Chikermane, Christin Thompson, Jose Benuzillo, Seth Clancy, Amber Pawlikowski and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Structural Heart Disease.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. What is new in cardiac anesthesia in 2024?Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Innovation in Interventional Cardiovascular Care.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Mark J RussoDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Division of Structural Heart Disease, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Sammy ElmariahDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, California, USA.
Tsuyoshi KanekoDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
David V DanielsDivision of Cardiology, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Rajendra R MakkarSmidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Soumya G ChikermaneEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA.
Christin ThompsonEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA.
Jose BenuzilloEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA.
Seth ClancyEdwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA.
Amber PawlikowskiBiome Analytics, San Francisco, California, USA.
Skye LawrenceBiome Analytics, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jeff LuckBiome Analytics, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is important to identify predictors of excellent outcomes (good clinical outcomes, more time spent at home) after TAVR that are potentially amenable to improvement. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to use machine learning to identify potentially modifiable predictors of clinically relevant patient-centered outcomes after TAVR. Methods: We used data from 8,332 TAVR cases (January 2016-December 2021) from 21 hospitals to train random forest models with 57 patient characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, surgical risk score, lab values, health status scores) and care process parameters to predict the end point, a composite of parameters that designated an excellent outcome and included no major complications (in-hospital or at 30 days), post-TAVR length of stay of 1 day or less, discharge to home, no readmission, and alive at 30 days. We used recursive feature elimination with cross-validation and Shapley Additive Explanation feature importance to identify parameters with the highest predictive values. Results: The final random forest model retained 29 predictors (15 patient characteristics and 14 care process components); the area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.77, 0.67, and 0.73, respectively. Four potentially modifiable predictors with relatively high Shapley Additive Explanation values were identified: type of anesthesia, direct movement to stepdown unit post-TAVR, time between catheterization and TAVR, and preprocedural length of stay. Conclusions: This study identified four potentially modifiable predictors of excellent outcome after TAVR, suggesting that machine learning combined with hospital-level data can inform modifiable components of care, which could support better delivery of care for patients undergoing TAVR.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiologycare processpatient-centeredrandom forestTAVR

Identifiers

PMID39108421
PMCPMC11301356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.