Key result
Cluster analysis in hospitalized HFpEF identifies three phenotypes with up to ~4.8-fold higher 12-month risk.
Why the study?
Risk stratification to guide post-hospitalization follow-up and resource allocation in HFpEF remains elusive, and cluster analysis had not been applied in the acute setting.
Can machine learning cluster analysis identify distinct risk phenotypes and predict adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with HFpEF?
Can machine learning cluster analysis identify distinct risk phenotypes and predict adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with HFpEF?
Machine learning cluster analysis successfully identifies distinct low, intermediate, and high-risk phenotypes in hospitalized HFpEF patients, highlighting NYHA class and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as key prognostic markers to guide personalized management.
May refine risk stratification in hospitalized HFpEF; leaves open whether phenotypes guide therapy.
Background Intensive follow-up post-hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) is recommended, but difficult to pursue. Risk stratification of HHF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) might help to improve resource allocation. However, it remains elusive and no study has applied cluster analysis in the acute setting. Methods Consecutive patients with HHF and left ventricular EF >40% were enrolled and evaluated at discharge. A composite endpoint of all-cause death, urgent heart transplant, HF hospitalization, or emergency department visit for decompensated HF was assessed at 12 months. Cluster analysis was performed using prespecified variables, while Cox regression and CART analysis identified predictors of adverse outcomes. Results 1052 HF patients were screened. After excluding HF with EF below 40%, 471 patients (median age 78 years, 44% women) were included. Among them, three clusters were identified. Cluster 1 comprised younger patients with de novo HF, fewer comorbidities, preserved renal function, and lower BNP (B-type natriuretic peptides) and NLR (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) levels. Cluster 2 consisted mainly of elderly women with hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Cluster 3 included older patients with worsening HF, higher NYHA class, renal dysfunction, anemia, and elevated BNP and NLR. Compared with Cluster 1, risk was nearly threefold higher in Cluster 2 (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7–5.2, p<0.001) and fivefold higher in Cluster 3 (HR 4.8, 95% CI 2.7–8.4, p<0.001). Outcome results were consistent in the vulnerable period (3 months). NYHA class and NLR emerged as key prognostic nodes. Conclusion Cluster analysis identified low, intermediate, and high-risk acute HFpEF phenotypes. These data might support personalized management strategies in hospitalized HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spagnolin et al. (2026) studied this question. Cluster analysis in hospitalized HFpEF identified three phenotypes: Cluster 2 had 2.9-fold and Cluster 3 had 4.8-fold higher 12-month risk than Cluster 1.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: