Key result
A novel network model risk calculator identified patient clusters where the highest risk group had a 4.3-fold increased hazard for 3-year all-cause hospitalization (95% CI, 2.2-8.1; P<0.0001).
Why the study?
Does a network analysis-based risk calculator improve risk stratification for 3-year hospitalization in patients with exercise intolerance?
Cohort (n=738)
Yes
Does a network analysis-based risk calculator improve risk stratification for 3-year hospitalization in patients with exercise intolerance?
Hazard Ratio: 4.3 (95% CI 2.2–8.1)
p-value: p=<0.0001
Network analysis of invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters identifies novel patient clusters and provides a point-of-care risk calculator that predicts 3-year hospitalization better than peak VO2 alone.
May refine risk assessment in exercise-intolerant patients; leaves open whether these variables improve outcomes over traditional models.
Rationale: Current methods assessing clinical risk because of exercise intolerance in patients with cardiopulmonary disease rely on a small subset of traditional variables. Alternative strategies incorporating the spectrum of factors underlying prognosis in at-risk patients may be useful clinically, but are lacking. Objective: Use unbiased analyses to identify variables that correspond to clinical risk in patients with exercise intolerance. Methods and Results: Data from 738 consecutive patients referred for invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing at a single center (2011–2015) were analyzed retrospectively (derivation cohort). A correlation network of invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters was assembled using |r|>0.5. From an exercise network of 39 variables (ie, nodes) and 98 correlations (ie, edges) corresponding to P <9.5e −46 for each correlation, we focused on a subnetwork containing peak volume of oxygen consumption (pV o 2 ) and 9 linked nodes. K-mean clustering based on these 10 variables identified 4 novel patient clusters characterized by significant differences in 44 of 45 exercise measurements ( P <0.01). Compared with a probabilistic model, including 23 independent predictors of pV o 2 and pV o 2 itself, the network model was less redundant and identified clusters that were more distinct. Cluster assignment from the network model was predictive of subsequent clinical events. For example, a 4.3-fold ( P <0.0001; 95% CI, 2.2–8.1) and 2.8-fold ( P =0.0018; 95% CI, 1.5–5.2) increase in hazard for age- and pV o 2 -adjusted all-cause 3-year hospitalization, respectively, were observed between the highest versus lowest risk clusters. Using these data, we developed the first risk-stratification calculator for patients with exercise intolerance. When applying the risk calculator to patients in 2 independent invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing cohorts (Boston and Graz, Austria), we observed a clinical risk profile that paralleled the derivation cohort. Conclusions: Network analyses were used to identify novel exercise groups and develop a point-of-care risk calculator. These data expand the range of useful clinical variables beyond pV o 2 that predict hospitalization in patients with exercise intolerance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oldham et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Exercise intolerance in cardiopulmonary disease (n=738). Highest risk cluster (network model risk calculator) vs. Lowest risk cluster was evaluated on Age-adjusted all-cause 3-year hospitalization (HR 4.3, 95% CI 2.2-8.1, p=<0.0001). A novel network model risk calculator identified patient clusters where the highest risk group had a 4.3-fold increased hazard for 3-year all-cause hospitalization (95% CI, 2.2-8.1; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: