Dataset Information

Clinical phenogroups are more effective than left ventricular ejection fraction categories in stratifying heart failure outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Heart failure (HF) guidelines place patients into 3 discrete groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): reduced (<40%), mid-range (40-49%), and preserved LVEF (≥50%). We assessed whether clinical phenogroups offer better prognostication than LVEF.

Methods and results

This was a sub-study of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in HF trial. We analysed baseline characteristics of hospitalized patients in whom LVEF was recorded. We used unsupervised machine learning to identify clinical phenogroups and, thereafter, determined associations between phenogroups and outcomes. Primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome was the composite cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Cluster analysis of 1693 patients revealed six discrete phenogroups, each characterized by a predominant comorbidity: coronary heart disease, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), sleep apnoea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or few comorbidities. Phenogroups were LVEF independent, with each phenogroup encompassing a wide range of LVEFs. For the primary composite outcome at 6 months, the hazard ratios (HRs) for phenogroups ranged from 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.58 for AF] to 2.04 (95% CI 1.62-2.57 for COPD) (log-rank P < 0.001); and at 12 months, the HRs for phenogroups ranged from 1.15 (95% CI 0.94-1.41 for AF) to 1.87 (95% 1.52-3.20 for COPD) (P < 0.002). LVEF-based classifications did not separate patients into different risk categories for the primary outcomes at 6 months (P = 0.69) and 12 months (P = 0.30). Phenogroups also stratified risk of the secondary composite outcome at 6 and 12 months more effectively than LVEF.

Conclusion

Among patients hospitalized for HF, clinical phenotypes generated by unsupervised machine learning provided greater prognostic information for a composite of clinical endpoints at 6 and 12 months compared with LVEF-based categories.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02112227.

SUBMITTER: Gevaert AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318507 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes. Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064-2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335-2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096-1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247-2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020-1.718, P = 0.035). Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

Project description:Nonischemic cardiomyopathy is a common cause of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and myocardial fibrosis. The purpose of this study was to noninvasively evaluate changes in segmental LV extracellular volume (ECV) fraction, LV velocities, myocardial scar, and wall motion in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients.Cardiac MRI including pre- and postcontrast myocardial T1 mapping and velocity quantification (tissue phase mapping) of the LV (basal, midventricular, and apical short axis) was applied in 31 patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (50±18 years). Analysis based on the 16-segment American Heart Association model was used to evaluate the segmental distribution of ECV, peak systolic and diastolic myocardial velocities, scar determined by late gadolinium enhancement, and wall motion abnormalities. LV segments with scar or impaired wall motion were significantly associated with elevated ECV (rs =0.26; P<0.001) and reduced peak systolic radial velocities (r=-0.43; P<0.001). Regional myocardial velocities and ECV were similar for patients with reduced (n=12; ECV=0.28±0.06) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (n=19; ECV=0.30±0.09). Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant relationships between increasing ECV and reduced systolic (r=-0.19; r=-0.30) and diastolic (r=0.34; r=0.26) radial and long-axis peak velocities (P<0.001). Even after excluding myocardial segments with late gadolinium enhancement, significant relationships between ECV and segmental LV velocities were maintained indicating the potential of elevated ECV to identify regional diffuse fibrosis not visible by late gadolinium enhancement, which was associated with impaired regional LV function.Regionally elevated ECV negatively affected myocardial velocities. The association of elevated regional ECV with reduced myocardial velocities independent of left ventricular ejection fraction suggests a structure-function relationship between altered ECV and segmental myocardial function in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.Patients and methodsRecords were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.ResultsLV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.ConclusionIn view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Project description:ImportancePatients categorized as having heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the midrange between 40% and 50% (HFmrEF) are known to be at increased risk of future events. Although patients can transition into the midrange through either improvement or deterioration in their LVEF, there is limited information available assessing the association of directional change in LVEF with future events. Understanding the association between change in LVEF and the clinical course of patients with HFmrEF would be of value in guiding management strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether risk of clinical events experienced by patients with HFmrEF varies according to whether LVEF improved or deteriorated into the range of 40% to 50% from previous measurements.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients were identified from the electronic health records at the UC San Diego Health System who had an LVEF measured between 40% and 50% on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed during the calendar year of 2015 and who also had at least 1 prior TTE for comparison. The clinical course of these patients was then followed from the time of the index TTE through December 2018. Data were analyzed from January to March 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization, the composite of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, and each of the individual components.ResultsOf the 448 patients who were identified with HFmrEF, 278 (62.1%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 67.4 (9.7) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from less than 40% in 157 patients (35.0%), deteriorated from greater than 50% in 224 patients (50.0%), and remained between 40% and 50% over time in 67 patients (15.0%). Compared with patients whose LVEF improved from less than 40% to midrange levels, patients whose LVEF deteriorated from greater than 50% had higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82; P = .03) and of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08-2.50; P = .02), and these differences persisted after multivariable analysis. Outcomes did not differ significantly between patients whose LVEF improved and those in whom it remained stable.Conclusion and relevanceIn a cohort of patients with HFmrEF from a large academic medical center, the clinical course was strongly influenced by the directional change in LVEF from prior study. Patients whose LVEF deteriorated into midrange levels experienced a significantly higher risk of adverse clinical events than patients whose LVEF had improved. These results suggest that directional change in LVEF from prior measurements should be considered when devising management strategies for patients with HFmrEF.

Project description:AIMS:Neuregulin1-? (NRG1-?) is released from microvascular endothelial cells in response to inflammation with compensatory cardioprotective effects. Circulating NRG1-? is elevated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not studied in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:Circulating NRG1-? was quantified in 86 stable patients with HFpEF (EF ?45% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide >300 ng/L), in 86 patients with HFrEF prior to and after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and/or heart transplantation (HTx) and in 21 healthy controls. Association between NRG1-? and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality/HF hospitalization in HFpEF and all-cause mortality/HTx/LVAD implantation in HFrEF with and without ischaemia assessed as macrovascular coronary artery disease was assessed. In HFpEF, median (25th-75th percentile) NRG1-? was 6.5 (2.1-11.3) ng/mL; in HFrEF, 3.6 (2.1-7.6) ng/mL (P = 0.035); after LVAD, 1.7 (0.9-3.6) ng/mL; after HTx 2.1 (1.4-3.6) ng/mL (overall P < 0.001); and in controls, 29.0 (23.1-34.3) ng/mL (P = 0.001). In HFrEF, higher NRG1-? was associated with worse outcomes (hazard ratio per log increase 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.03, P = 0.029), regardless of ischaemia. In HFpEF, the association of NRG1-? with outcomes was modified by ischaemia (log-rank P = 0.020; Pinteraction = 0.553) such that only in ischaemic patients, higher NRG1-? was related to worse outcomes. In contrast, in patients without ischaemia, higher NRG1-? trended towards better outcomes (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.48-1.05, P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS:Neuregulin1-? was reduced in HFpEF and further reduced in HFrEF. The opposing relationships of NRG1-? with outcomes in non-ischaemic HFpEF compared with HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF may indicate compensatory increases of cardioprotective NRG1-? from microvascular endothelial dysfunction in the former (non-ischaemic HFpEF), but this compensatory mechanism is overwhelmed by the presence of ischaemia in the latter (HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF).