Clinical Implications of Cluster Analysis-Based Classification of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Correlation with Bedside Hemodynamic Profiles

Tariq Ahmad, Nihar Desai, Francis Wilson, Phillip Schulte, Allison Dunning, Daniel Jacoby, Larry Allen, Mona Fiuzat, Joseph Rogers, G Michael Felker, Christopher O’Connor and Chetan B Patel

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 2, 1-15

Abstract: Background: Classification of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is based on subjective criteria that crudely capture disease heterogeneity. Improved phenotyping of the syndrome may help improve therapeutic strategies. Objective: To derive cluster analysis-based groupings for patients hospitalized with ADHF, and compare their prognostic performance to hemodynamic classifications derived at the bedside. Methods: We performed a cluster analysis on baseline clinical variables and PAC measurements of 172 ADHF patients from the ESCAPE trial. Employing regression techniques, we examined associations between clusters and clinically determined hemodynamic profiles (warm/cold/wet/dry). We assessed association with clinical outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models. Likelihood ratio tests were used to compare the prognostic value of cluster data to that of hemodynamic data. Results: We identified four advanced HF clusters: 1) male Caucasians with ischemic cardiomyopathy, multiple comorbidities, lowest B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels; 2) females with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, few comorbidities, most favorable hemodynamics; 3) young African American males with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, most adverse hemodynamics, advanced disease; and 4) older Caucasians with ischemic cardiomyopathy, concomitant renal insufficiency, highest BNP levels. There was no association between clusters and bedside-derived hemodynamic profiles (p = 0.70). For all adverse clinical outcomes, Cluster 4 had the highest risk, and Cluster 2, the lowest. Compared to Cluster 4, Clusters 1–3 had 45–70% lower risk of all-cause mortality. Clusters were significantly associated with clinical outcomes, whereas hemodynamic profiles were not. Conclusions: By clustering patients with similar objective variables, we identified four clinically relevant phenotypes of ADHF patients, with no discernable relationship to hemodynamic profiles, but distinct associations with adverse outcomes. Our analysis suggests that ADHF classification using simultaneous considerations of etiology, comorbid conditions, and biomarker levels, may be superior to bedside classifications.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145881 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 45881&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0145881

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145881

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().