Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Heart failure (HF) with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction includes a heterogenous group of patients. Reclassification into distinct phenogroups to enable targeted interventions is a priority. This study aimed to identify distinct phenogroups, and compare phenogroup characteristics and outcomes, from electronic health record data.Methods
2,187 patients admitted to five UK hospitals with a diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were identified from the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative database. Partition-based, model-based, and density-based machine learning clustering techniques were applied. Cox Proportional Hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks models were used to compare outcomes (all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF) across phenogroups.Results
Three phenogroups were identified: (1) Younger, predominantly female patients with high prevalence of cardiometabolic and coronary disease; (2) More frail patients, with higher rates of lung disease and atrial fibrillation; (3) Patients characterised by systemic inflammation and high rates of diabetes and renal dysfunction. Survival profiles were distinct, with an increasing risk of all-cause mortality from phenogroups 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). Phenogroup membership significantly improved survival prediction compared to conventional factors. Phenogroups were not predictive of hospitalisation for HF.Conclusions
Applying unsupervised machine learning to routinely collected electronic health record data identified phenogroups with distinct clinical characteristics and unique survival profiles.
SUBMITTER: Soltani F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11229019 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data.
Soltani Fardad F Jenkins David A DA Kaura Amit A Bradley Joshua J Black Nicholas N Farrant John P JP Williams Simon G SG Mulla Abdulrahim A Glampson Benjamin B Davies Jim J Papadimitriou Dimitri D Woods Kerrie K Shah Anoop D AD Thursz Mark R MR Williams Bryan B Asselbergs Folkert W FW Mayer Erik K EK Herbert Christopher C Grant Stuart S Curzen Nick N Squire Iain I Johnson Thomas T O'Gallagher Kevin K Shah Ajay M AM Perera Divaka D Kharbanda Rajesh R Patel Riyaz S RS Channon Keith M KM Lee Richard R Peek Niels N Mayet Jamil J Miller Christopher A CA
BMC cardiovascular disorders 20240705 1
<h4>Background</h4>Heart failure (HF) with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction includes a heterogenous group of patients. Reclassification into distinct phenogroups to enable targeted interventions is a priority. This study aimed to identify distinct phenogroups, and compare phenogroup characteristics and outcomes, from electronic health record data.<h4>Methods</h4>2,187 patients admitted to five UK hospitals with a diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were id ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMany therapies for heart failure (HF) have shown differential impact across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).ObjectivesIn this prespecified analysis, the authors assessed the effects of semaglutide across the baseline LVEF strata in patients with the obesity phenotype of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the STEP-HFpEF (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity and HFpEF) trial.MethodsSTEP-HFpEF randomized 529 patients (263 semaglutide; 266 placebo). For this prespecified analysis, patients were categorized into 3 groups based on LVEF: 45% to 49% (n = 85), 50% to 59% (n = 215), and ≥60% (n = 229).ResultsAt 52 weeks, semaglutide improved the dual primary endpoints of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (estimated treatment difference: EF [ejection fraction] 45%-49%: 5.0 points [95% CI: -2.7 to 12.8 points], EF 50%-59%: 9.8 points [95% CI: 5.0 to 14.6 points], and EF ≥60%: 7.4 points [95% CI: 2.8 to 12.0 points]; P interaction = 0.56) and body weight (EF: 45%-49%: -7.6 [95% CI: -10.7 to -4.4], EF 50%-59%: -10.6 [95% CI: -12.6 to -8.6] and EF ≥60%: -11.9 [95% CI: -13.8 to -9.9]; P interaction = 0.08), to a similar extent across LVEF categories. Likewise, LVEF did not influence the benefit of semaglutide on confirmatory secondary endpoints: 6-minute walk distance (P interaction = 0.19), hierarchal composite endpoint (P interaction = 0.43), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (P interaction = 0.26); or exploratory endpoint of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (P interaction = 0.96). Semaglutide was well-tolerated across LVEF categories.ConclusionsIn patients with HFpEF and obesity, semaglutide 2.4 mg improved symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced inflammation and body weight to a similar extent across LVEF categories. These data support treatment with semaglutide in patients with the obesity phenotype of HFpEF regardless of LVEF. (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity [STEP-HFpEF]; NCT04788511).
| S-EPMC11185158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsEmpagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, was shown to be effective in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among Japanese patients with HFpEF.Methods and resultsA Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in patients with HFpEF from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and with a lifetime horizon. In addition to clinical events, the progression of disease severity was modelled based on the migration of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores (KCCQ-CSS). Model inputs, including risk of clinical events, costs, and utilities/disutilities, were derived from EMPEROR-Preserved trial data, a claims database and published literature. The generalizability of model results was investigated by applying various subgroups including age, body mass index (BMI), and region Asia, based on the subgroup analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved data. In the base-case analysis, empagliflozin yielded additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11) with an incremental cost of $1408 per patient for Japanese patients with HFpEF. Incremental cost, mainly derived from drug acquisition cost ($1963 per patient), was largely offset by reduced cost in hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death (-$537 per patient and -$166 per patient, respectively). Treatment of empagliflozin provided incremental 0.11 QALYs and 0.08 life years compared with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $12 772 (¥1 662 689)/QALY, which was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38 408 (¥5 000 000)/QALY. The results were consistent across all the subgroups considered, and empagliflozin was dominant over SoC alone in the region Asia and BMI < 25 kg/m2 subgroups. ICERs for the remaining subgroups ranged from $7520/QALY (¥978 972/QALY, patients with baseline age ≥ 75 years) to $31 049/QALY (¥4 041 896/QALY, patients with baseline New York Heart Association class III/IV). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that the treatment effect on HHF is the biggest driver of the cost-effectiveness analysis, while the ICER will be still under the threshold even if no effect of empagliflozin on HHF was assumed. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis result showed that 64% of simulations were cost-effective based on the Japanese WTP threshold.ConclusionsEmpagliflozin was demonstrated to be cost-effective for patients with HFpEF in Japan based on EMPEROR-Preserved trial data.
| S-EPMC10804196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn recent years, significant progress has been made in the pharmacologic treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but there is still insufficient evidence for drug therapy for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with different drug combinations for the treatment of HFpEF and HFmrEF.Data sourcesA search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases was conducted for studies published from inception to October 9, 2021.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), β-blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and bias assessment were independently performed by 2 reviewers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. All data for 3 outcomes were pooled with a fixed-effect model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were first hospitalization for HF, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were evaluated using a bayesian network meta-analysis model.ResultsIn this analysis, 19 randomized clinical trials, including 20 633 patients with HF and an ejection fraction of 40% or more, without a remarkable risk of bias were included. Compared with placebo, no treatments were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of all-cause death or cardiovascular death. SGLT2 inhibitors, ARNIs, and MRAs were associated with a significant decrease in the risk of HF hospitalization compared with placebo (SGLT2 inhibitors: HR, 0.71 [95% CrI, 0.60-0.83]; ARNIs: HR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.61-0.95]; MRAs: HR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.69-0.99]), and SGLT2 inhibitors were the optimal drug class in terms of reducing the risk for HF admission. Sensitivity analysis results demonstrated a progressive decrease in the risk of HF admission and an advance in mean rank associated with the increasing use of drug classes.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors were the optimal drug class for HFpEF and HFmrEF, consistent with the most recent guideline recommendation. The incremental use of combinations of SGLT2 inhibitors, ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and β-blockers may be associated with accumulative benefits in HF hospitalization rather than all-cause death among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF.
| S-EPMC9490501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe identification of subjects at higher risk for incident heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) suitable for more intensive preventive programmes remains challenging. We applied phenomapping to the DAVID-Berg population, comprising subjects with preclinical HF, aiming to refine HF risk stratification.MethodsThe DAVID-Berg study prospectively enrolled 596 asymptomatic outpatients with EF > 40% with hypertension, diabetes mellitus or known cardiovascular disease. In this cohort, we performed an unsupervised cluster analysis on 591 patients, including clinical, laboratory, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. We tested the association between each cluster and a composite outcome of HF/death.ResultsThe median age was 70 years, 55.5% were males and the median EF was 61.0%. Phenomapping provided three different clusters. Subjects in Cluster 3 were the oldest and had the highest prevalence of atrial fibrillation, the lowest estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the highest N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and the largest left atrium. During a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 13.4% of subjects experienced HF/death events (N = 79). Compared with Clusters 1 and 2, Cluster 3 had the worst prognosis (log-rank test: Cluster 3 vs. 1 P < 0.001; Cluster 3 vs. 2 P = 0.008). Cluster 3 was associated with a risk of HF/death 2.5 times higher than Cluster 1 [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-4.90].ConclusionsBased on phenomapping, older patients with lower kidney function and worse diastolic function might represent a subset of preclinical HF with EF > 40% who deserve more efforts to prevent clinical HF.
| S-EPMC11424346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsClinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings.Methods and resultsPatients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmong patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.
| S-EPMC11424357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTreatment with finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction in FINEARTS-HF, but was associated with increased levels of serum potassium in follow-up.ObjectiveTo investigate the frequency and predictors of serum potassium level greater than 5.5 mmol/L and less than 3.5 mmol/L and examine the treatment effect associated with finerenone, relative to placebo, on clinical outcomes based on postrandomization potassium levels.Design, setting, and participantsSecondary analysis of the FINEARTS-HF multicenter, randomized clinical trial, performed between September 14, 2020, and January 10, 2023, with a median follow-up of 32 months (final date of follow-up: June 14, 2024). Patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 40%, New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides were included.InterventionParticipants received finerenone or placebo.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events or cardiovascular death.ResultsA total of 6001 participants were included (3003 randomized to receive finerenone and 2998 randomized to receive placebo). The increase in serum potassium was greater in the finerenone group than the placebo group at 1 month (median [IQR] difference, 0.19 [0.17-0.21] mmol/L) and 3 months (median [IQR] difference, 0.23 [0.21-0.25] mmol/L), which persisted for the remainder of trial follow-up. Finerenone increased the risks of potassium level increasing to greater than 5.5 mmol/L (hazard ratio [HR], 2.16 [95% CI, 1.83-2.56]; P < .001) and decreased the risks for potassium level decreasing to less than 3.5 mmol/L (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.38-0.56]; P < .001). Both low (< 3.5 mmol/L; HR, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.8-3.43]) and high (>5.5 mmol/L; HR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.04-2.58]) potassium levels were associated with higher subsequent risks of the primary outcome in both treatment groups. Nevertheless, the risk of the primary outcome was generally lower in patients treated with finerenone compared with placebo, even in those whose potassium level increased to greater than 5.5 mmol/L.Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in more frequent hyperkalemia and less frequent hypokalemia. However, with protocol-directed surveillance and dose adjustment, clinical benefit associated with finerenone relative to placebo was maintained even in those whose potassium level increased to greater than 5.5 mmol/L.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.
| S-EPMC11571067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.
| S-EPMC9065872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContemporary analyses of the distribution of heart failure (HF) patients by groups of ejection fraction are not available or are limited to hospitalized patients. Our objective was to quantify the per-person and system level clinical burden of a broad population of HF patients.MethodsWe studied 16,516 patients with a new HF diagnosis recorded in the electronic medical record of a U.S. integrated delivery system between 2005 and 2017. We used the diagnosis date as the index date and the nearest echocardiogram result to classify patients as HFrEF (n = 2,430), HFmrEF (n = 1,646), HFpEF (n = 12,440) and followed them through 2019 for major clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations [HHF], all-cause hospitalizations, incident chronic kidney disease [CKD], progression of eGFR category, progression of CKD, incident type 2 diabetes [T2D], and progression to insulin use). We compared age and sex adjusted incidence rates and rate ratios of the outcomes between the HF types.ResultsIncidence rates for most outcomes were significantly higher among patients with HFrEF compared with HFpEF. HHF was 59 % greater, mortality 31 % greater, and CKD incidence 55 % greater, (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, the larger size of the HFpEF group generated 4.7-6.7 times as many total outcomes.ConclusionsRegardless of subtype, the presence of HF was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Incidence rates were higher for HFrEF than HFpEF, but as the latter represented 75% of the study population, HFpEF caused a greater overall burden on the health care system, reflecting the high unmet need of target therapies for HFpEF.
| S-EPMC10424074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study investigates the prognostic impact of body mass index (BMI) in patients hospitalized with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).BackgroundLimited data regarding the prognostic impact of BMI in patients with HFmrEF is available.MethodsConsecutive patients with HFmrEF (ie, left ventricular ejection fraction 41-49% and signs and/or symptoms of HF) were retrospectively included at one institution from 2016 to 2022. Risk stratification was performed according to WHO-defined BMI groups. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 30 months (median follow-up). Kaplan-Meier, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional regression analyses were applied for statistics.Results1832 consecutive patients with HFmrEF were included with a median BMI of 26.7 kg/m2 (IQR 24.0-30.8 kg/m2). Patients with lowest BMI (ie, 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) were associated with highest risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months compared to patients with higher BMI values (40.0% vs 29.0% vs 21.4% vs 20.9%; log rank p = 0.001; HR = 0.721; 95% CI 0.656-0.793; p = 0.001). Even after multivariable adjustment, higher BMI values were associated with improved survival at 30 months (HR = 0.963; 95% CI 0.943-0.985; p = 0.001). In contrast, the risk of HF- related rehospitalization at 30 months was not affected by BMI (log rank p = 0.064).ConclusionIn patients hospitalized with HFmrEF, lower BMI was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 months, suggesting an obesity paradox in HFmrEF.
| S-EPMC10933520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsDapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In this study, the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin according to background diuretic therapy and the influence of dapagliflozin on longitudinal diuretic use were evaluated.Methods and resultsIn this pre-specified analysis of the Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure (DELIVER) trial, the effects of dapagliflozin vs. placebo were assessed in the following subgroups: no diuretic, non-loop diuretic, and loop diuretic furosemide equivalent doses of <40, 40, and >40 mg, respectively. Of the 6263 randomized patients, 683 (10.9%) were on no diuretic, 769 (12.3%) were on a non-loop diuretic, and 4811 (76.8%) were on a loop diuretic at baseline. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin on the primary composite outcome were consistent by diuretic use categories (Pinteraction = 0.64) or loop diuretic dose (Pinteraction = 0.57). Serious adverse events were similar between dapagliflozin and placebo arms, irrespective of diuretic use or dosing. Dapagliflozin reduced new initiation of loop diuretics by 32% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.84, P < 0.001] but did not influence discontinuations/disruptions (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86-1.13, P = 0.83) in follow-up. First sustained loop diuretic dose increases were less frequent, and sustained dose decreases were more frequent in patients treated with dapagliflozin: net difference of -6.5% (95% CI: -9.4 to -3.6; P < 0.001). The mean dose of loop diuretic increased over time in the placebo arm, a longitudinal increase that was significantly attenuated with treatment with dapagliflozin (placebo-corrected treatment effect of -2.5 mg/year; 95% CI: -1.5, -3.7, P < 0.001).ConclusionIn patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, the clinical benefits of dapagliflozin relative to placebo were consistent across a wide range of diuretic categories and doses with a similar safety profile. Treatment with dapagliflozin significantly reduced new loop diuretic requirement over time.
| S-EPMC10484057 | biostudies-literature