It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Aims
Application of the latent class analysis to acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) showed that the heterogeneous acute HFpEF patients can be classified into four distinct phenotypes with different clinical outcomes. This model‐based clustering required a total of 32 variables to be included. However, this large number of variables will impair the clinical application of this classification algorithm. This study aimed to identify the minimal number of variables for the development of optimal subphenotyping model.
Methods and results
This study is a post hoc analysis of the PURSUIT‐HFpEF study (N = 1095), a prospective, multi‐referral centre, observational study of acute HFpEF [UMIN000021831]. We previously applied the latent class analysis to the PURSUIT‐HFpEF dataset and established the full 32‐variable model for subphenotyping. In this study, we used the Cohen's kappa statistic to investigate the minimal number of discriminatory variables needed to accurately classify the phenogroups in comparison with the full 32‐variable model. Cohen's kappa statistic of the top‐X number of discriminatory variables compared with the full 32‐variable derivation model showed that the models with ≥16 discriminatory variables showed kappa value of >0.8, suggesting that the minimal number of discriminatory variables for the optimal phenotyping model was 16. The 16‐variable model consists of C‐reactive protein, creatinine, gamma‐glutamyl transferase, brain natriuretic peptide, white blood cells, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood sugar, triglyceride, clinical scenario classification, infection‐triggered acute decompensated HF, estimated glomerular filtration rate, platelets, neutrophils, GWTG‐HF (Get With The Guidelines‐Heart Failure) risk score, chronic kidney disease, and CONUT (Controlling Nutritional Status) score. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of the four phenotypes subclassified by the minimal 16‐variable model were consistent with those by the full 32‐variable model. The four phenotypes were labelled based on their characteristics as ‘rhythm trouble’, ‘ventricular‐arterial uncoupling’, ‘low output and systemic congestion’, and ‘systemic failure’, respectively.
Conclusions
The phenotyping model with top 16 variables showed almost perfect agreement with the full 32‐variable model. The minimal model may enhance the future clinical application of this clustering algorithm.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
2 Division of Biomedical Statistics, Department of Integrated Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
3 Department of Social and Environmental Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
4 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan, Department of Transformative System for Medical Information, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
5 Division of Cardiology, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
6 Division of Cardiology, Osaka Rosai Hospital, Osaka, Japan
7 Cardiovascular Division, Osaka Police Hospital, Osaka, Japan
8 Division of Cardiology, Amagasaki Chuo Hospital, Hyogo, Japan, Department of Medical Informatics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
9 Division of Cardiology, Kawanishi City Hospital, Hyogo, Japan
10 Department of Cardiology, Rinku General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
11 Division of Cardiology, Amagasaki Chuo Hospital, Hyogo, Japan





