ReviewAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
From innovation to implementation: Addressing the AI adoption gap in cardiac surgery.
Review in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "From innovation to implementation: Addressing the AI adoption gap in cardiac surgery".American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing rapidly across cardiovascular medicine, its translation into cardiac surgery remains limited. Algorithms show promise in diagnostics, perioperative risk prediction, and workflow optimization, yet most applications remain confined to research environments. A focused synthesis is needed to clarify validated clinical value and persistent implementation barriers. Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between January 2015 and September 2024. We included 45 primary studies (2019-2024) and eight foundational studies (2015-2018) reporting original data or validated AI models relevant to any stage of cardiac surgical care. Findings were synthesized across five domains: diagnostic support, personalized treatment planning, intraoperative decision support, operational efficiency, and equitable access to care. Results: AI demonstrated strong performance in echocardiographic interpretation, outcome prediction, and perioperative resource planning, often surpassing conventional risk models. Computer-vision platforms supported surgical phase recognition and enhanced intraoperative imaging workflows, while operational tools improved scheduling accuracy, transfusion forecasting, and bed allocation. Evidence for AI-driven improvements in equitable care delivery was emerging but limited. Most studies were retrospective, single-center, and lacked external validation or clinical integration. Conclusion: AI is positioned to augment cardiac surgery, with the most mature applications in imaging and operational logistics. Adoption remains constrained by heterogeneous data, limited interpretability, regulatory uncertainty, and poor workflow integration. Progress will require multicenter data collaboratives, strong validation frameworks, and clinician-centered implementation strategies that position AI as an augmentative partner, enhancing precision, judgment, and system efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.