Background: Cholesterol metabolism is dysregulated in sepsis contributing to patient heterogeneity. Subphenotypes displaying lower lipoprotein levels and higher mortality (previously subphenotyped hypolipoprotein phenotype [HYPO]) or higher lipoprotein levels and lower mortality (previously subphenotyped normolipoprotein phenotype [NORMO]) were described. We developed a simplified clinical algorithm for bedside subphenotype recognition. Methods: We analyzed data from four prospective studies (internal dataset), focusing on HYPO and NORMO subphenotypes. A 1,000-tree random forest classifier and logistic regression models were built, using clinical features to predict subphenotypes. Performance was evaluated by comparing predictions to actual subphenotypes derived from a machine learning model. The model was applied to an external dataset of 281 patients from three French studies. Results: The internal cohort consisted of 386 patients (median age, 63 years; 46% female). Four clinical features (hepatic SOFA, cardiovascular SOFA, low [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol {LDL-C}] and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [high-density lipoprotein cholesterol {HDL-C}]) predicted HYPO versus NORMO subphenotypes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86, a sensitivity of 0.771, and a specificity of 0.779. In the internal dataset, 28-day mortality for HYPO versus NORMO patients was 26% versus 15%, and in the external cohort, 30% versus 10%. HYPO internal versus external dataset LDL-C levels were similar ( P = 0.99), but HDL-C ( P = 0.02) levels were different. Median NORMO internal versus external dataset LDL-C ( P = 0.99) and HDL-C ( P = 0.12) levels were similar. HYPO patients had lower LDL-C, HDL-C and total cholesterol than NORMO patients in both internal and external datasets. Conclusions: Our simplified clinical data algorithm may allow for bedside recognition of septic patients displaying lipid dysregulation subphenotypes. External validation is needed to verify these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Labilloy et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: