Key result
Latent class analysis identifies four distinct multidimensional vulnerability phenotypes in older adults with CHD.
Why the study?
Older adults with CHD frequently exhibit concurrent physical, cognitive, functional, social, and cardiovascular vulnerabilities, prompting an effort to identify clinically interpretable multidimensional vulnerability phenotypes and characterize their baseline profiles.
Cross-Sectional (n=178)
No
Vulnerability in older adults with chronic coronary heart disease clusters into distinct multidimensional configurations (cardiac-dominant, physical-social-cognitive, lower-burden, and multidomain high-burden) rather than a single frailty-severity continuum, highlighting the value of integrated geriatric and cardiovascular assessment.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating for multidimensional vulnerability phenotypes in older CHD patients; prospective studies needed before clinical adoption.
Older adults with coronary heart disease (CHD) frequently exhibit concurrent physical, cognitive, functional, social, and cardiovascular vulnerabilities. We aimed to identify clinically interpretable multidimensional vulnerability phenotypes and characterize their baseline profiles. This single-centre observational study included 178 adults aged ≥ 60 years with chronic CHD. Following exploratory indicator-set development, latent class analysis was performed using nine binary indicators spanning physical, functional, social, cognitive, and cardiovascular domains. Two- to six-class solutions were compared using information criteria, entropy, posterior classification, class size, response profiles, and clinical interpretability; 60-day outcomes were examined separately. AIC and sample-size-adjusted BIC favoured three classes, whereas BIC favoured two. A four-class solution was retained as an exploratory compromise, with entropy of 0.761, all classes comprising ≥ 9.6% of participants, and class-specific average posterior probabilities of 0.808–0.884. The phenotypes were cardiac dysfunction-dominant vulnerability (9.6%), physical-social-cognitive vulnerability (28.1%), lower-burden functionally preserved (52.2%), and multidomain high-burden vulnerability (10.1%). No clear between-class differences were detected in exploratory 60-day outcomes, although event counts were limited. Vulnerability in older adults with CHD was heterogeneous in composition rather than simply ordered along a frailty-severity continuum. Multidimensional phenotyping may complement conventional cardiovascular assessment, although the retained class structure requires external and longitudinal validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Chronic coronary heart disease (n=178). Latent class analysis of nine binary cardiovascular and geriatric vulnerability indicators was evaluated on Identification of multidimensional cardiovascular-geriatric vulnerability phenotypes via latent class analysis. Latent class analysis of 178 older adults with CHD identified four vulnerability phenotypes: lower-burden, physical-social-cognitive, multidomain, and cardiac.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: