Advancements in computing and data from the near universal acceptance and implementation of electronic health records has been formative for the growth of personalized, automated, and immediate patient care models that were not previously possible. Artificial intelligence (AI) and its subfields of machine learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning are well-suited to deal with such data. The authors in this paper review current applications of AI in clinical medicine and discuss the most likely future contributions that AI will provide to the healthcare industry. For instance, in response to the need to risk stratify patients, appropriately cultivated and curated data can assist decision-makers in stratifying preoperative patients into risk categories, as well as categorizing the severity of ailments and health for non-operative patients admitted to hospitals. Previous overt, traditional vital signs and laboratory values that are used to signal alarms for an acutely decompensating patient may be replaced by continuously monitoring and updating AI tools that can pick up early imperceptible patterns predicting subtle health deterioration. Furthermore, AI may help overcome challenges with multiple outcome optimization limitations or sequential decision-making protocols that limit individualized patient care. Despite these tremendously helpful advancements, the data sets that AI models train on and develop have the potential for misapplication and thereby create concerns for application bias. Subsequently, the mechanisms governing this disruptive innovation must be understood by clinical decision-makers to prevent unnecessary harm. This need will force physicians to change their educational infrastructure to facilitate understanding AI platforms, modeling, and limitations to best acclimate practice in the age of AI. By performing a thorough narrative review, this paper examines these specific AI applications, limitations, and requisites while reviewing a few examples of major data sets that are being cultivated and curated in the US.

Background: Models that predict postoperative complications often ignore important intraoperative events and physiological changes. This study tested the hypothesis that accuracy, discrimination, and precision in predicting postoperative complications would improve when using both preoperative and intraoperative data input data compared with preoperative data alone. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis included 43,943 adults undergoing 52,529 inpatient surgeries at a single institution during a 5-y period. Random forest machine learning models in the validated MySurgeryRisk platform made patient-level predictions for seven postoperative complications and mortality occurring during hospital admission using electronic health record data and patient neighborhood characteristics. For each outcome, one model trained with preoperative data alone; one model trained with both preoperative and intraoperative data. Models were compared by accuracy, discrimination (expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), precision (expressed as area under the precision-recall curve), and reclassification indices. Results: Machine learning models incorporating both preoperative and intraoperative data had greater accuracy, discrimination, and precision than models using preoperative data alone for predicting all seven postoperative complications (intensive care unit length of stay >48 h, mechanical ventilation >48 h, neurologic complications including delirium, cardiovascular complications, acute kidney injury, venous thromboembolism, and wound complications), and in-hospital mortality (accuracy: 88% versus 77%; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.93 versus 0.87; area under the precision-recall

IMPORTANCEPredicting postoperative complications has the potential to inform shared decisions regarding the appropriateness of surgical procedures, targeted risk-reduction strategies, and postoperative resource use. Realizing these advantages requires that accurate real-time predictions be integrated with clinical and digital workflows; artificial intelligence predictive analytic platforms using automated electronic health record (EHR) data inputs offer an intriguing possibility for achieving this, but there is a lack of high-level evidence from prospective studies supporting their use. OBJECTIVETo examine whether the MySurgeryRisk artificial intelligence system has stable predictive performance between development and prospective validation phases and whether it is feasible to provide automated outputs directly to surgeons' mobile devices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this prognostic study, the platform used automated EHR data inputs and machine learning algorithms to predict postoperative complications and provide predictions to surgeons, previously through a web portal and currently through a mobile device application. All patients 18 years or older who were admitted for any type of inpatient surgical

Background. Intraoperative fluid management may affect the outcome after kidney transplantation. However, the amount and type of fluid administered, and monitoring techniques vary greatly between institutions and there are limited prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses to guide fluid management in kidney transplant recipients. Methods. Members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) committee on transplantation reviewed the current literature on the amount and type of fluids (albumin, starches, 0.9% saline, and balanced crystalloid solutions) administered and the different monitors used to assess fluid status, resulting in this consensus statement with recommendations based on the best available evidence. Results. Review of the current literature suggests that starch solutions are associated with increased risk of renal injury in randomized trials and should be avoided in kidney donors and recipients. There is no evidence supporting the routine use of albumin solutions in kidney transplants. Balanced crystalloid solutions such as Lactated Ringer are associated with less acidosis and may lead to less hyperkalemia than 0.9% saline solutions. Central venous pressure is only weakly supported as a tool to assess fluid status. Conclusions. These recommendations may be useful to anesthesiologists making fluid management decisions during kidney transplantation and facilitate future research on this topic.