Key result
Cluster 4 HF phenotype linked to ~35% lower mortality or hospitalization vs cluster 1.
Why the study?
Classification of chronic heart failure based on current criteria may not adequately capture disease heterogeneity, and improved phenotyping could help inform research and therapeutic strategies.
Does a structured exercise program improve clinical outcomes differentially across distinct clinical phenotypes of chronic systolic heart failure?
Observational (n=1,619)
Does a structured exercise program improve clinical outcomes differentially across distinct clinical phenotypes of chronic systolic heart failure?
Cluster analysis of chronic heart failure patients identifies distinct clinical phenotypes with varying risk profiles and differential responses to exercise therapy, highlighting the need for improved disease phenotyping.
BACKGROUND Classification of chronic heart failure (HF) is based on criteria that may not adequately capture disease heterogeneity. Improved phenotyping may help inform research and therapeutic strategies. OBJECTIVE This study used cluster analysis to explore clinical phenotypes in chronic HF patients. METHODS A cluster analysis was performed on 45 baseline clinical variables from 1,619 participants in HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training), evaluating exercise training versus usual care in chronic systolic HF. Association between identified clusters and clinical outcomes was performed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Differential associations between clinical outcomes and exercise testing were examined using interaction testing. RESULTS Ranging in size from 248 to 773, four clusters were identified whose patients varied considerably along measures of age, sex, race, symptoms, comorbidities, HF etiology, socioeconomic status, quality of life, cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters, and biomarker levels. Differential associations were observed for hospitalization and mortality risks between and within clusters. To illustrate, compared with cluster 1, risk of all-cause mortality/all-cause hospitalization ranged from 0.65 (0.54 to 0.78) for cluster 4 to 1.02 (0.87 to 1.19) for cluster 3. However, for all-cause mortality, cluster 3 had disproportionately lower risk 0.61 (0.44 to 0.86). Evidence suggested differential effects of exercise treatment on changes in peak VO2 and clinical outcomes between clusters (p for interaction <0.04). CONCLUSIONS Cluster analysis of clinical variables identified 4 distinct phenotypes of chronic HF. Our findings underscore the high degree of disease heterogeneity that exists within chronic HF patients and a need for improved phenotyping.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Chronic systolic heart failure (n=1,619). Cluster 4 phenotype vs. Cluster 1 phenotype was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.78). Cluster 4 phenotype was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or hospitalization (HR 0.65) compared to cluster 1, demonstrating distinct prognostic profiles in heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: