Unlocking the future: machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a single-arm meta-analysis

Abstract Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to be increasingly performed. While machine learning has demonstrated utility in predicting adverse outcomes in various cardiovascular procedures, its effectiveness in predicting in-hospital mortality in TAVR remains uncertain. Purpose We aimed to examine the accuracy of machine learning in predicting in-hospital mortality in TAVR. Methods We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases up to February 2024 for observational studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning for predicting in-hospital mortality in TAVR. Extracted data included study characteristics, patient demographics, type of predictive model used, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Predictive accuracy was assessed by pooling AUC of machine-learning models across studies. AUC values ranging from 0.80 to 0.90, 0.70 to 0.80, 0.60 to 0.70, and 0.50 to 0.60 corresponded to excellent, good, fair, and poor discrimination ability, respectively (1). We used a random effects model to estimate the overall effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 test.We conducted subgroup analyses based on the type of machine-learning model utilized to assess for any potential differences in predictive accuracy. Results A total of three studies were identified, comprising a study population of 70,714 patients. Across studies, eight machine learning models were utilized, consisting of three artificial neural network models, one logistic regression model, one naive Bayes model, two random forest models, and one support vector machine model. Pooled AUC showed excellent accuracy of machine learning in predicting in-hospital mortality in TAVR (0.92; 95% CI 0.90 - 0.95). Subgroup analyses revealed similar yet excellent accuracy across all types of machine learning models utilized: artificial neural network (0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.99), logistic regression (0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.95), naive Bayes (0.90; 95% CI 0.88-0.92), random forest (0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.00), and support vector machine (0.94; 95% CI 0.91-0.96). Conclusion Our study suggests that utilizing machine learning can accurately predict in-hospital mortality in TAVR. Operators of TAVR procedures may benefit from incorporating machine learning prediction models in their clinical practice. Further exploration of machine learning on outcomes in TAVR is needed to verify our findings.