Key result
Machine learning-derived 'HF with congestion and lower output' was associated with a higher 5-year risk of cardiovascular death or HF readmission compared to 'HFpEF-like HF' (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.49-1.71).
Why the study?
Heart failure classification based on LVEF inadequately captures HF heterogeneity, limiting phenotype-specific therapies, and comprehensive ML approaches across the full LVEF spectrum are scarce.
Does unsupervised machine learning-based classification improve risk stratification for 5-year cardiovascular death or heart failure readmission compared to LVEF-based classification in patients with acute heart failure?
Cohort (n=13,238)
Yes
Does unsupervised machine learning-based classification improve risk stratification for 5-year cardiovascular death or heart failure readmission compared to LVEF-based classification in patients with acute heart failure?
Unsupervised machine learning based on admission variables identifies distinct acute heart failure phenogroups that better stratify 5-year prognostic risk than traditional LVEF-based categories.
Background Heart failure (HF) classification based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) inadequately captures HF heterogeneity, limiting phenotype‐specific therapies. While machine learning (ML) has been applied to HF with preserved ejection fraction, comprehensive approaches across the full LVEF spectrum remain scarce. This study aimed to identify HF phenogroups across the entire LVEF spectrum using unsupervised ML, moving beyond the LVEF‐centric and fragmented understanding of HF. Methods We analyzed 13 238 patients with acute HF from a nationwide, multicenter Japanese cohort (JROADHF [Japanese Registry of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure]). Unsupervised latent class analysis identified phenogroups from 46 clinically important admission variables. The primary end point was the 5‐year composite of cardiovascular death or HF readmission. Results Three ML‐based phenogroups emerged: (1) “HF with congestion and lower output” (n=2638), (2) “HF with afterload mismatch” (n=3462), and (3) “HFpEF‐like HF” (n=7138). ML‐derived groups stratified risk for the primary end point ( P <0.001), whereas LVEF‐based classification did not ( P =0.267). Compared with phenogroup 3, phenogroup 1 had a higher age‐adjusted risk by Cox regression model (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.49–1.71]) and phenogroup 2 had a lower risk (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60–0.70]). Notably, variable‐importance analysis by discriminative power for phenogroup assignment indicated that total bilirubin, left ventricular diastolic diameter, and hemoglobin rather than LVEF principally drove classification. Conclusions Unsupervised ML identified novel HF phenogroups with distinct 5‐year outcomes. This framework moves beyond an LVEF‐centric paradigm, deepens understanding of HF pathophysiology, and may facilitate phenotype‐specific therapeutic development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kyodo et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute heart failure (n=13,238). Machine learning-derived phenogroup 1 (HF with congestion and lower output) vs. Machine learning-derived phenogroup 3 (HFpEF-like HF) was evaluated on 5-year composite of cardiovascular death or HF readmission (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49-1.71, p=<0.001). Machine learning-derived 'HF with congestion and lower output' was associated with a higher 5-year risk of cardiovascular death or HF readmission compared to 'HFpEF-like HF' (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.49-1.71).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: