Key result
Six distinct clinical clusters were identified in HFmrEF, with the metabolic phenotype showing the highest risk of mortality and hospitalization compared to the low-comorbidity cluster (HR 3.1; 95% CI 2.5-3.7).
Why the study?
Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction is a newly recognised heterogeneous entity, and cluster analysis could help characterise patient subgroups for trial stratification and prognostication.
Observational (n=8,852)
Yes
Hazard Ratio: 3.1 (95% CI 2.5–3.7)
Latent class analysis identifies six distinct clinical phenotypes in HFmrEF with significantly different risks for mortality and hospitalization, which may aid in risk stratification and clinical trial design.
HFmrEF clusters show distinct prognoses; hypothesis-generating for risk stratification pending prospective validation.
INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) is a heterogeneous syndrome, and the specific sub-category HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF) range (HFmrEF; 41-49% EF) is only recently recognised as a distinct entity. Cluster analysis can characterise heterogeneous patient populations and could serve as a stratification tool in clinical trials and for prognostication. The aim of this study was to identify clusters in HFmrEF and compare cluster prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Latent class analysis to cluster HFmrEF patients based on their characteristics was performed in the Swedish HF registry (n = 7316). Identified clusters were validated in a Dutch cross-sectional HF registry-based dataset CHECK-HF (n = 1536). In Sweden, mortality and hospitalisation across the clusters were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model, with a Fine-Gray sub-distribution for competing risks and adjustment for age and sex. Six clusters were discovered with the following prevalence and hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals (HR [95%CI]) vs. cluster 1: 1) low-comorbidity (17%, reference), 2) ischaemic-male (13%, HR 0.9 [95% CI 0.7-1.1]), 3) atrial fibrillation (20%, HR 1.5 [95% CI 1.2-1.9]), 4) device/wide QRS (9%, HR 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.4]), 5) metabolic (19%, HR 3.1 [95% CI 2.5-3.7]) and 6) cardio-renal phenotype (22%, HR 2.8 [95% CI 2.2-3.6]). The cluster model was robust between both datasets. CONCLUSION: We found robust clusters with potential clinical meaning and differences in mortality and hospitalisation. Our clustering model could be valuable as a clinical differentiation support and prognostic tool in clinical trial design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meijs et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (n=8,852). Metabolic clinical cluster vs. Low-comorbidity cluster was evaluated on Mortality and hospitalisation (HR 3.1, 95% CI 2.5-3.7). Six distinct clinical clusters were identified in HFmrEF, with the metabolic phenotype showing the highest risk of mortality and hospitalization compared to the low-comorbidity cluster (HR 3.1; 95% CI 2.5-3.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: