Key figures
- 4.6 min AI-assisted interpretation (American Heart Association, published Nov. 9, 2026)
- 8.5 min Without AI assistance (American Heart Association, published Nov. 9, 2026)
- about 46% Time savings (American Heart Association, published Nov. 9, 2026)
This is a meeting abstract, not a peer-reviewed paper, and the exams were historical, not live clinic flow. Healio reported that cardiologist time also fell when the preliminary report came from a sonographer.
Kaiser Permanente Northern California cardiologists spent an average of 4.6 minutes reviewing and finalizing an AI-generated preliminary echocardiogram interpretation, compared with 8.5 minutes to generate interpretation reports without AI assistance, a time savings of about 46%. The figures come from a blinded, randomized trial of 1,200 exams previously acquired during routine care in March 2025 at 21 of the system's medical centers, presented Nov. 9, 2026, as late-breaking science at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions in Chicago.
Researchers say this is the first randomized trial testing an AI tool to craft a full echocardiogram report including interpretations and measurements. Cardiologists made substantial changes to 50.6% of the AI-generated preliminary interpretations, compared with 49.7% of those prepared by sonographers and cardiologists. The results met the study's criteria for the AI-assisted approach to be considered non-inferior, or comparable in accuracy, to the human-assisted approaches. The AI-assisted reports were more consistent with historical reports in the medical record than reports in the comparison group. The American Heart Association release does not name the AI vendor or model.
"Because of the large number of echocardiograms cardiologists read, even a few minutes saved per interpretation can add up to a significant amount of time over the course of a day," said co-senior author Keane K. Lee, M.D., M.S., a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Homestead Medical Center. "For patients, this could potentially mean faster turnaround of results and more access to care, and for cardiologists, more time to spend with patients." He added, "AI cannot, however, replace the human team."
What the Index says: this is a meeting abstract, not a peer-reviewed paper, and the exams were historical, not live clinic flow. The 4.6 versus 8.5 minute comparison is against interpretation without AI assistance. Healio reported that cardiologist time also fell when the preliminary report came from a sonographer, so this should not be read as AI uniquely beating a human prelim on speed. The study did not test whether AI help improves patients' long-term health, and the cardiologists knew they were in a study, so they may have changed their usual work patterns.
Sources:
American Heart Association, "AI-interpreted echocardiograms comparable to human reports, cardiologists' time cut by about 50%" (Nov. 9, 2026)
Healio, "AI-interpreted echocardiograms comparable to human reports, may halve reading time" (Nov. 9, 2026)
Healthcare – Providers Use Case Lead story
About 46 Percent Faster
A Kaiser Permanente Northern California trial presented at the American Heart Association found cardiologists finished AI-assisted echo interpretations in 4.6 minutes, versus 8.5 minutes without AI, a time savings of about 46%. Comparable accuracy; a meeting abstract, not a published paper.
Read the story