Phenotyping Cardiogenic Shock

Author:

Zweck Elric12ORCID,Thayer Katherine L.1ORCID,Helgestad Ole K. L.34ORCID,Kanwar Manreet5ORCID,Ayouty Mohyee6,Garan A. Reshad7ORCID,Hernandez‐Montfort Jaime8ORCID,Mahr Claudius9ORCID,Wencker Detlef10ORCID,Sinha Shashank S.11,Vorovich Esther12ORCID,Abraham Jacob13,O’Neill William14,Li Song9ORCID,Hickey Gavin W.15ORCID,Josiassen Jakob16ORCID,Hassager Christian1617,Jensen Lisette O.3ORCID,Holmvang Lene1617,Schmidt Henrik18,Ravn Hanne B.1719,Møller Jacob E.34,Burkhoff Daniel20ORCID,Kapur Navin K.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. The CardioVascular Center Tufts Medical Center Boston MA

2. Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf Germany

3. Department of Cardiology Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark

4. Odense Patient Data Explorative Network University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark

5. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Allegheny Health Network Pittsburgh PA

6. Tufts University School of Medicine Boston MA

7. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston MA

8. Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston FL

9. University of Washington Medical Center Seattle WA

10. Baylor Scott & White Advanced Heart Failure Clinic Dallas TX

11. Inova Heart and Vascular Institute Falls Church VA

12. Northwestern Medicine Chicago IL

13. Providence Heart Institute Portland OR

14. Henry Ford Hospital Detroit MI

15. UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute Pittsburgh PA

16. Department of Cardiology Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark

17. Department of Clinical Medicine University of Copenhagen Denmark

18. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark

19. Department of Cardiac Anesthesiology Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark

20. Cardiovascular Research Foundation New York NY

Abstract

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with varied presentations and outcomes. We used a machine learning approach to test the hypothesis that patients with CS have distinct phenotypes at presentation, which are associated with unique clinical profiles and in‐hospital mortality. Methods and Results We analyzed data from 1959 patients with CS from 2 international cohorts: CSWG (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry) (myocardial infarction [CSWG‐MI; n=410] and acute‐on‐chronic heart failure [CSWG‐HF; n=480]) and the DRR (Danish Retroshock MI Registry) (n=1069). Clusters of patients with CS were identified in CSWG‐MI using the consensus k means algorithm and subsequently validated in CSWG‐HF and DRR. Patients in each phenotype were further categorized by their Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions staging. The machine learning algorithms revealed 3 distinct clusters in CS: "non‐congested (I)", "cardiorenal (II)," and "cardiometabolic (III)" shock. Among the 3 cohorts (CSWG‐MI versus DDR versus CSWG‐HF), in‐hospital mortality was 21% versus 28% versus 10%, 45% versus 40% versus 32%, and 55% versus 56% versus 52% for clusters I, II, and III, respectively. The "cardiometabolic shock" cluster had the highest risk of developing stage D or E shock as well as in‐hospital mortality among the phenotypes, regardless of cause. Despite baseline differences, each cluster showed reproducible demographic, metabolic, and hemodynamic profiles across the 3 cohorts. Conclusions Using machine learning, we identified and validated 3 distinct CS phenotypes, with specific and reproducible associations with mortality. These phenotypes may allow for targeted patient enrollment in clinical trials and foster development of tailored treatment strategies in subsets of patients with CS.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3