AI cuts cardiologists' echocardiogram review time by 46%
Late-breaking research presented November 9 at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2026 reported that AI-drafted preliminary echocardiogram reports were comparable to human drafts. Cardiologists averaged 4.6 minutes finalizing AI drafts versus 8.5 minutes without AI. The findings are a non-peer-reviewed abstract.
This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Healthcare teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.
Key takeaways
Cardiologists averaged 4.6 minutes finalizing AI-drafted echo reports versus 8.5 minutes without AI, about 46% less time.
Cardiologists made substantial changes to 50.6% of AI drafts and 49.7% of human drafts.
The research used 1,200 echocardiograms from 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers.
Free workspace
Turn your Healthcare expertise into content.
Record interviews, organize footage, and write with AI on a free trial of the MarketScale platform for qualifying companies. No demo required, no credit card.
Preliminary echocardiogram reports drafted by an AI tool were comparable in accuracy to reports drafted by sonographers and cardiologists and cut the time cardiologists spent finalizing them by about 46%, according to late-breaking research presented November 9 at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2026 in Chicago.
Cardiologists averaged 4.6 minutes per echocardiogram when reviewing and finalizing AI-generated preliminary interpretations, compared with 8.5 minutes without AI assistance, the American Heart Association said in its release.
How the trial worked
The researchers used 1,200 transthoracic echocardiograms performed over two weeks in March 2025 at 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers. For each exam, the AI tool, a sonographer and a cardiologist each prepared a preliminary report. Those reports were randomly assigned to cardiologists, who reviewed and finalized them without knowing the source. Nine sonographers and 20 cardiologists took part.
Cardiologists made substantial changes to 50.6% of the AI-generated preliminary interpretations and 49.7% of the human-generated ones, meeting the study's non-inferiority goal, according to the release. Final reports based on AI drafts also agreed more often with historical reports in patients' medical records. Healio reported that reviewing cardiologists could not tell whether a draft came from AI, a sonographer or a cardiologist.
Co-senior author Keane K. Lee, M.D., M.S., a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Homestead Medical Center, said in the release that "what surprised us was the extent to which using AI-generated reports reduced the time cardiologists needed to interpret echocardiograms."
AI cannot, however, replace the human team. — Keane K. Lee, M.D., M.S., Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Homestead Medical Center
Limitations
The study did not test long-term patient outcomes, and cardiologists knew they were participating, which may have changed their usual work patterns, the AHA said. The findings are a research abstract that has not been peer-reviewed, and the researchers said more study is needed in real-world, higher-volume settings.
Sources
Featured companies
Your experts belong here
Every story in MarketScale Healthcare starts with a company putting its clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.
Service-line buyers vet vendors quietly, and your clinicians become the proof they find while doing it.
About the author
The MarketScale Newsroom reports on the companies, technologies, and trends shaping 16 B2B industries. It turns primary sources and expert commentary into clear, useful coverage for the people doing the work.
