Back to Search Start Over

Phenotyping cardiogenic shock

Authors :
Navin K. Kapur
Esther Vorovich
Jakob Josiassen
Claudius Mahr
Gavin Hickey
Mohyee Ayouty
William W. O'Neill
Lisette Okkels Jensen
Song Li
Christian Hassager
Elric Zweck
Lene Holmvang
Ole Kristian Lerche Helgestad
Katherine L. Thayer
Daniel Burkhoff
Detlef Wencker
Henrik Schmidt
A. Reshad Garan
Jacob Abraham
Jaime Hernandez-Montfort
Manreet Kanwar
Jacob E. Møller
Hanne Berg Ravn
Shashank S. Sinha
Source :
Zweck, E, Thayer, K L, Helgestad, O K L, Kanwar, M, Ayouty, M, Garan, A R, Hernandez-Montfort, J, Mahr, C, Wencker, D, Sinha, S S, Vorovich, E, Abraham, J, O’neill, W, Li, S, Hickey, G W, Josiassen, J, Hassager, C, Jensen, L O, Holmvang, L, Schmidt, H, Ravn, H B, Møller, J E, Burkhoff, D & Kapur, N K 2021, ' Phenotyping cardiogenic shock ', Journal of the American Heart Association, vol. 10, no. 14, e020085 . https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020085, Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
Publication Year :
2021

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.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Zweck, E, Thayer, K L, Helgestad, O K L, Kanwar, M, Ayouty, M, Garan, A R, Hernandez-Montfort, J, Mahr, C, Wencker, D, Sinha, S S, Vorovich, E, Abraham, J, O’neill, W, Li, S, Hickey, G W, Josiassen, J, Hassager, C, Jensen, L O, Holmvang, L, Schmidt, H, Ravn, H B, Møller, J E, Burkhoff, D & Kapur, N K 2021, ' Phenotyping cardiogenic shock ', Journal of the American Heart Association, vol. 10, no. 14, e020085 . https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.020085, Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....b14b7a49a0546defad37d37172671dad