Key result
Machine learning identifies five distinct AF phenotypes linked to escalating mortality and CV event risks.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation is a heterogeneous condition, prompting the need to identify cluster phenotypes and assess their prognostic implications.
Can machine learning-based cluster analysis identify distinct phenotypes of atrial fibrillation with different clinical outcomes?
Observational (n=6,907)
Yes
Can machine learning-based cluster analysis identify distinct phenotypes of atrial fibrillation with different clinical outcomes?
p-value: p=<0.001
Machine learning-based cluster analysis can identify five distinct clinical phenotypes of atrial fibrillation that stratify the risk of mortality and cardiovascular events.
AF cluster phenotypes may aid risk stratification; leaves open whether they guide therapy or outperform scores in prospective trials.
OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a heterogeneous condition. We performed a cluster analysis in a cohort of patients with AF and assessed the prognostic implication of the identified cluster phenotypes. METHODS: We used two multicentre, prospective, observational registries of AF: the SAKURA AF registry (Real World Survey of Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Warfarin and Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants) (n=3055, derivation cohort) and the RAFFINE registry (Registry of Japanese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Focused on anticoagulant therapy in New Era) (n=3852, validation cohort). Cluster analysis was performed by the K-prototype method with 14 clinical variables. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular events. RESULTS: The analysis subclassified derivation cohort patients into five clusters. Cluster 1 (n=414, 13.6%) was characterised by younger men with a low prevalence of comorbidities; cluster 2 (n=1003, 32.8%) by a high prevalence of hypertension; cluster 3 (n=517, 16.9%) by older patients without hypertension; cluster 4 (n=652, 21.3%) by the oldest patients, who were mainly female and with a high prevalence of heart failure history; and cluster 5 (n=469, 15.3%) by older patients with high prevalence of diabetes and ischaemic heart disease. During follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular events increased across clusters (log-rank p<0.001, p<0.001). Similar results were found in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning-based cluster analysis identified five different phenotypes of AF with unique clinical characteristics and different clinical outcomes. The use of these phenotypes may help identify high-risk patients with AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saito et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=6,907). Cluster phenotypes (Clusters 1-5) vs. Across clusters was evaluated on All-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular events (p=<0.001). Machine learning-based cluster analysis identified five distinct atrial fibrillation phenotypes with increasing risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events across clusters (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: