Editorial: Novel phenotyping and risk stratification strategies for heart failure

Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan,Ana Ciobanu,Ying Liu,Aggeliki Gkouziouta,Tong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1115991

IF: 3.6

2023-01-01

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:EDITORIAL article Front. Cardiovasc. Med., 05 January 2023Sec. Heart Failure and Transplantation Volume 9 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1115991

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Heart failure: advanced development in genetics and epigenetics.

Jian Yang,Wei-Wei Xu,Shen-Jiang Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/352734

2015-01-01

BioMed Research International

Abstract:Heart failure (HF) is a complex pathophysiological syndrome that arises from a primary defect in the ability of the heart to take in and/or eject sufficient blood. Genetic mutations associated with familial dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy can contribute to the various pathologies of HF. Therefore, genetic screening could be an approach for guiding individualized therapies and surveillance. In addition, epigenetic regulation occurs via key mechanisms, including ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling, DNA methylation, histone modification, and RNA-based mechanisms. MicroRNA is also a hot spot in HF research. This review gives an overview of genetic mutations associated with cardiomyopathy and the roles of some epigenetic mechanisms in HF.
Editorial: Risk Stratification Strategies for Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities

Gary Tse,Nan Zhang,Wenhua Song,Konstantinos P. Letsas,Tachapong Ngarmukos,Kamalan Jeevaratnam,Tong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.887461

IF: 3.6

2022-01-01

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:EDITORIAL article Front. Cardiovasc. Med., 27 April 2022Sec. Cardiac Rhythmology https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.887461
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping

Matthew G Dimond,Nasrien E Ibrahim,Mona Fiuzat,John J V McMurray,JoAnn Lindenfeld,Tariq Ahmad,Biykem Bozkurt,Michael R Bristow,Javed Butler,Peter E Carson,G Michael Felker,Mariell Jessup,Jaime Murillo,Toru Kondo,Scott D Solomon,William T Abraham,Christopher M O'Connor,Mitchell A Psotka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2023.11.005

Abstract:Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) cutpoints. Although LVEF is prognostic for risk of events and predictive of response to some HF therapies, LVEF is a continuous variable and cutpoints are arbitrary, often based on historical clinical trial enrichment decisions rather than physiology. Holistic evaluation of the treatment effects for therapies throughout the LVEF range suggests the standard categorization paradigm for HF merits modification. The multidisciplinary Heart Failure Collaboratory reviewed data from large-scale HF clinical trials and found that many HF therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit across a large range of LVEF, but specific treatment effects vary across that range. Therefore, HF should practically be classified by association with an LVEF that is reduced or not reduced, while acknowledging uncertainty around the precise LVEF cutpoint, and future research should evaluate new therapies across the continuum of LVEF.
Abstract 4129533: Phenotypes and Clinical Outcome of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (hfpef) Patients in China: Findings from the Chinese Cardiovascular Association Database-Heart Failure Center Registry

Shuai Yuan,Zhonglei Xie,Xiaotong Cui,Jingmin Zhou,Junbo Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4129533

IF: 37.8

2024-01-01

Circulation

Abstract:Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogenous syndrome with 5 phenotypes. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of HFpEF patients with various phenotypes in China. Methods and Results: Data from the Chinese Cardiovascular Association (CCA) Database-HF Center Registry between January 2017 and December 2021 were analyzed, 51,466 hospitalized HFpEF patients with 1-year follow-up results were included in this analysis. The patients were categorized into five phenotypes based on published phenotyping method. Clinical characteristics and 1-year outcome and related risk factors of HFpEF patients with various phenotypes were explored. Results demonstrated significant differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes among the phenotypes, patients with phenotype-3 (right heart and pulmonary-related HFpEF), phenotype-4 (valvular- and rhythm-related HFpEF) and phenotype-5 (extracardiac disease-related HFpEF) exhibited high incidence of adverse outcomes. Phenotype-3 and -4 exhibited high risk of heart failure rehospitalization, whereas phenotype-5 showed high cardiovascular mortality. The independent prognostic risk factors varied across different phenotypes as well. Conclusion: One-year outcome differs among HFpEF patients with various phenotyping. Future studies are warranted to validate if personalized treatment strategies based on HFpEF phenotypes could improve the individual outcome of HFpEF patients, especially for phenotype-3, -4 and -5 HFpEF patients. Keywords: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, phenotype, prognosis, population study, risk factors.
42855 A Phenomics Approach to the Categorization and Refinement of Heart Failure

Nosheen Reza,William Bone,Pankhuri Singhal,Anurag Verma,Ashwin C. Murthy,Srinivas Denduluri,Srinath Adusumalli,Macrylyn D. Ritchie,Thomas P. Cappola

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.524

2021-03-01

Journal of Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:ABSTRACT IMPACT: Measuring and analyzing qualitative and quantitative traits using phenomics approaches will yield previously unrecognized heart failure subphenotypes and has the potential to improve our knowledge of heart failure pathophysiology, identify novel biomarkers of disease, and guide the development of targeted therapeutics for heart failure. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Current classification schemes fail to capture the broader pathophysiologic heterogeneity in heart failure. Phenomics offers a newer unbiased approach to identify subtypes of complex disease syndromes, like heart failure. The goal of this research is to use data-driven associations to redefine the classification of the heart failure syndrome. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We will identify < 10 subphenotypes of patients with heart failure using unsupervised machine learning approaches for dense multidimensional quantitative (i.e. demographics, comorbid conditions, physiologic measurements, clinical laboratory, imaging, and medication variables; disease diagnosis, procedure, and billing codes) and qualitative data extracted from an integrated health system electronic health record. The heart failure subphenotypes we identify from the integrated health system electronic health record will be replicated in other heart failure population datasets using unsupervised learning approaches. We will explore the potential to establish associations between identified subphenotypes and clinical outcomes (e.g. all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We expect to identify < 10 mutually exclusive phenogroups of patients with heart failure that have differential risk profiles and clinical trajectories. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: We will attempt to derive and validate a data-driven unbiased approach to the categorization of novel phenogroups in heart failure. This has the potential to improve our knowledge of heart failure pathophysiology, identify novel biomarkers of disease, and guide the development of targeted therapeutics for heart failure.
Using Model‐Based Analysis and Physiology‐Informed Machine Learning to Refine the Stratification of Phenotypes in Heart Failure

Edith Jones,E. B. Randall,Kiley S. Hassavoort,David M. Cameron,Scott L. Hummel,Daniel A. Beard,Brian E. Carlson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.s1.r5899

2022-05-01

The FASEB Journal

Abstract:A model‐based approach was developed to elucidate etiological differences between and within patient groups representing the two dominant heart failure diagnoses: heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. A closed‐loop model of the cardiovascular system informed by patient‐specific transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and right heart catheterization (RHC) data was used to identify key parameters representing cardiovascular mechanics and hemodynamics. Thirty‐one patient records (10 HFrEF, 21 HFpEF) were obtained from the Cardiovascular Health Improvement Project database at the University of Michigan. Model simulations were tuned to match RHC and TTE pressure, volume, and cardiac output measurements in each patient. The underlying physiological model parameters were compared to model‐based norms and between HFrEF and HFpEF diagnoses. Our results confirm the main mechanistic parameter driving HFrEF is reduced left ventricular (LV) contractility, whereas HFpEF exhibits a more heterogeneous phenotype. To determine subgroups within the HFpEF diagnosis, we conducted a principal component analysis on the optimized parameters, which combined with machine learning techniques including k‐means and hierarchical clustering methods reveal (i) a group of HFrEF‐like HFpEF patients (HFpEF1) that share characteristics with HFrEF, (ii) a HFpEF group that exhibit classical characteristics of patients with diastolic dysfunction (HFpEF2), and (iii) a group of HFpEF patients that do not consistently cluster (NCC) among the machine learning techniques. These subgroups cannot be distinguished from the clinical data alone. However, reanalyzing the clinical data of each of these newly determined subgroups reveals that elevated systolic and diastolic LV volumes seen in both HFrEF and HFpEF1 may be used to identify HFrEF‐like HFpEF patients. Similar HFpEF groupings have been identified by other studies using specialized clinical measures (e.g., from non‐routine echocardiography and heart biopsies) whereas our study analyzes data from standard clinical procedures, such as TTE and RHC. Hence, our methodology has great translational potential to be broadly accepted in the clinic. These results suggest that physiology‐informed model‐based analysis of standard clinical data in conjunction with unsupervised machine learning can distinguish subgroups of HFpEF as separate phenotypes. Moreover, this methodology has the potential to retrospectively assess patient selection in past HFpEF clinical studies, aid in the optimization of prospective HFpEF subgroup selection for future clinical trials, and elucidate patient‐specific treatment strategies.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Machine learning based on biomarker profiles identifies distinct subgroups of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Rebecca J. Woolley,Daan Ceelen,Wouter Ouwerkerk,Jasper Tromp,Sylwia M. Figarska,Stefan D. Anker,Kenneth Dickstein,Gerasimos Filippatos,Faiez Zannad,Marco Metra,Leong Ng,Nilesh Samani,Dirk J Veldhuisen,Chim Lang,Carolyn S. Lam,Adriaan A. Voors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2144

2021-03-17

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aims</h3><p>The lack of effective therapies for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often ascribed to the heterogeneity of patients with HFpEF. We aimed to identify distinct pathophysiologic clusters of HFpEF based on circulating biomarkers.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods and Results</h3><p>We performed an unsupervised cluster analysis using 363 biomarkers from 429 patient with HFpEF. Relative differences in expression profiles of the biomarkers between clusters were assessed and used for pathway over‐representation analyses.</p><p>We identified four distinct patients subgroups based on their biomarker profiles : cluster 1 with the highest prevalence of diabetes mellitus and renal disease; cluster 2 with oldest age and frequent age‐related comorbidities; cluster 3 with youngest age, largest body size, least symptoms and lowest NT‐proBNP levels; and cluster 4 with highest prevalence of ischemic aetiology, smoking and chronic lung disease, most symptoms, as well as highest NT‐proBNP and troponin levels. Over a median follow‐up of 21 months, the occurrence of death or HF hospitalization was highest in clusters 1 and 4 (62.1% and 62.8% respectively) and lowest in cluster 3 (25.6%). Pathway over‐representation analyses revealed that the biomarker profile of patients in cluster 1 was associated with activation of inflammatory pathways while the biomarker profile of patients in cluster 4 was specifically associated with pathways implicated in cell proliferation regulation and cell survival.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusion</h3><p>Unsupervised cluster analysis based on biomarker profiles identified mutually exclusive subgroups of patients with HFpEF with distinct biomarker profiles, clinical characteristics and outcomes, suggesting different underlying pathophysiological pathways.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p></section>

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Novel Strategies in Diagnosing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Costantino Mancusi,Christian Basile,Carmen Spaccarotella,Giuseppe Gargiulo,Ilaria Fucile,Stefania Paolillo,Paola Gargiulo,Ciro Santoro,Lina Manzi,Federica Marzano,Pasquale Ambrosino,Nicola De Luca,Giovanni Esposito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40292-024-00629-1

Abstract:Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent global condition affecting approximately 50% of the HF population. With the aging of the worldwide population, its incidence and prevalence are expected to rise even further. Unfortunately, until recently, no effective medications were available to reduce the high mortality and hospitalization rates associated with HFpEF, making it a significant unmet need in cardiovascular medicine. Although HFpEF is commonly defined as HF with normal ejection fraction and elevated left ventricular filling pressure, performing invasive hemodynamic assessments on every individual suspected of having HFpEF is neither feasible nor practical. Consequently, several clinical criteria and diagnostic tools have been proposed to aid in diagnosing HFpEF. Overall, these criteria and tools are designed to assist healthcare professionals in identifying and evaluating patients who may have HFpEF based on a combination of signs, symptoms, biomarkers, and non-invasive imaging findings. By employing these non-invasive diagnostic approaches, clinicians can make informed decisions regarding the best pharmacological and rehabilitation strategies for individuals with suspected HFpEF. This literature review aims to provide an overview of all currently available methods for diagnosing and monitoring this disabling condition.
Viewing the future research directions of heart failure from ge's phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Yanxiang Zang,Wei-Min Li,Qi Lou,Hong Wang,Yu-Chen Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2470-7511.320321

2021-01-01

Cardiology Plus

Abstract:At present, guideline-directed medical therapy of heart failure (HF) has achieved certain results, but the evidence mostly focuses on HF with reduced ejection fraction, and there are some problems in the research on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), such as inconsistent inclusion criteria and unconvincing results. Therefore, it may be more individualized and targeted to perform classification, typing, and treatment of HF from aspects such as pathogenesis, etiology, or pathophysiology, but not ejection fraction, especially HFpEF with strong heterogeneity. Ge's phenotyping of HFpEF is based on etiology and pathology, aiming at improving the outcome of HFpEF and exploring new approaches for the prognosis of HF.
Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data

Fardad Soltani,David A Jenkins,Amit Kaura,Joshua Bradley,Nicholas Black,John P Farrant,Simon G Williams,Abdulrahim Mulla,Benjamin Glampson,Jim Davies,Dimitri Papadimitriou,Kerrie Woods,Anoop D Shah,Mark R Thursz,Bryan Williams,Folkert W Asselbergs,Erik K Mayer,Christopher Herbert,Stuart Grant,Nick Curzen,Iain Squire,Thomas Johnson,Kevin O'Gallagher,Ajay M Shah,Divaka Perera,Rajesh Kharbanda,Riyaz S Patel,Keith M Channon,Richard Lee,Niels Peek,Jamil Mayet,Christopher A Miller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03987-9

2024-07-05

Abstract:Background: Heart failure (HF) with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction includes a heterogenous group of patients. Reclassification into distinct phenogroups to enable targeted interventions is a priority. This study aimed to identify distinct phenogroups, and compare phenogroup characteristics and outcomes, from electronic health record data. Methods: 2,187 patients admitted to five UK hospitals with a diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were identified from the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative database. Partition-based, model-based, and density-based machine learning clustering techniques were applied. Cox Proportional Hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks models were used to compare outcomes (all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF) across phenogroups. Results: Three phenogroups were identified: (1) Younger, predominantly female patients with high prevalence of cardiometabolic and coronary disease; (2) More frail patients, with higher rates of lung disease and atrial fibrillation; (3) Patients characterised by systemic inflammation and high rates of diabetes and renal dysfunction. Survival profiles were distinct, with an increasing risk of all-cause mortality from phenogroups 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). Phenogroup membership significantly improved survival prediction compared to conventional factors. Phenogroups were not predictive of hospitalisation for HF. Conclusions: Applying unsupervised machine learning to routinely collected electronic health record data identified phenogroups with distinct clinical characteristics and unique survival profiles.
Distinguishing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A phenomics approach

Bart J. van Essen,Ganash N. Tharshana,Wouter Ouwerkerk,Poh Suan Daniel Yeo,David Sim,Fazlur Jaufeerally,Hean Yee Ong,Lieng Hsi Ling,Dinna Kar Nee Soon,Shao Guang Sheldon Lee,Gerard Leong,Seet Yoong Loh,Ru San Tan,Chrishan J. Ramachandra,Derek J. Hausenloy,Oi Wai Liew,Jenny Chong,Adriaan A. Voors,Carolyn S.P. Lam,A. Mark Richards,Jasper Tromp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3156

2024-02-06

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:CA125, carbohydrate antigen 125; CTSL, cathepsin L; DKK1, Dickkopf‐related protein 1; HBEGF, heparin‐binding EGF‐like growth factor; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; IL6, interleukin‐6; IL6R, interleukin‐6 receptor; IL8, interleukin‐8; LV, left ventricular; NGF, neurotrophic growth factor; PlGF, placental growth factor; TNFRSF, tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily. Study design and main study results. Aim Pathophysiological differences between patients with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF) remain unclear. Therefore we used a phenomics approach, integrating selected proteomics data with patient characteristics and cardiac structural and functional parameters, to get insight into differential pathophysiological mechanisms and identify potential treatment targets. Methods and results We report data from a representative subcohort of the prospective Singapore Heart Failure Outcomes and Phenotypes (SHOP), including patients with HFrEF (EF <40%, n = 217), HFpEF (EF ≥50%, n = 213), and age‐ and sex‐matched controls without HF (n = 216). We measured 92 biomarkers using a proximity extension assay and assessed cardiac structure and function in all participants using echocardiography. We used multi‐block projection to latent structure analysis to integrate clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker variables. Candidate biomarker targets were cross‐referenced with small‐molecule and drug databases. The total cohort had a median age of 65 years (interquartile range 60–71), and 50% were women. Protein profiles strongly discriminated patients with HFrEF (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.89) and HFpEF (AUC = 0.94) from controls. Phenomics analyses identified unique druggable inflammatory markers in HFpEF from the tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), which were positively associated with hypertension, diabetes, and increased posterior and relative wall thickness. In HFrEF, interleukin (IL)‐8 and IL‐6 were possible targets related to lower EF and worsening renal function. Conclusion We identified pathophysiological mechanisms related to increased cardiac wall thickness parameters and potentially druggable inflammatory markers from the TNFRSF in HFpEF.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Clinical phenogroups are more effective than left ventricular ejection fraction categories in stratifying heart failure outcomes

Andreas B. Gevaert,Semra Tibebu,Mamas A. Mamas,Neal G. Ravindra,Shun Fu Lee,Tariq Ahmad,Dennis T. Ko,James L. Januzzi,Harriette G.C. Van Spall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13344

2021-05-02

ESC Heart Failure

Abstract:AimsHeart failure (HF) guidelines place patients into 3 discrete groups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): reduced (<40%), mid-range (40–49%), and preserved LVEF (≥50%). We assessed whether clinical phenogroups offer better prognostication than LVEF. Methods and resultsThis was a sub-study of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in HF trial. We analysed baseline characteristics of hospitalized patients in whom LVEF was recorded. We used unsupervised machine learning to identify clinical phenogroups and, thereafter, determined associations between phenogroups and outcomes. Primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome was the composite cardiovascular death or HF rehospitalization at 6 and 12 months. Cluster analysis of 1693 patients revealed six discrete phenogroups, each characterized by a predominant comorbidity: coronary heart disease, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AF), sleep apnoea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or few comorbidities. Phenogroups were LVEF independent, with each phenogroup encompassing a wide range of LVEFs. For the primary composite outcome at 6 months, the hazard ratios (HRs) for phenogroups ranged from 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.58 for AF] to 2.04 (95% CI 1.62–2.57 for COPD) (log-rank P < 0.001); and at 12 months, the HRs for phenogroups ranged from 1.15 (95% CI 0.94–1.41 for AF) to 1.87 (95% 1.52–3.20 for COPD) (P < 0.002). LVEF-based classifications did not separate patients into different risk categories for the primary outcomes at 6 months (P = 0.69) and 12 months (P = 0.30). Phenogroups also stratified risk of the secondary composite outcome at 6 and 12 months more effectively than LVEF. ConclusionAmong patients hospitalized for HF, clinical phenotypes generated by unsupervised machine learning provided greater prognostic information for a composite of clinical endpoints at 6 and 12 months compared with LVEF-based categories.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02112227

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Characteristics, Prognosis and Treatment Response in Distinct Phenogroups of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Jun Gu,Jian-an Pan,Hao Lin,Jun-feng Zhang,Chang-qian Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.065

IF: 4.039

2020-01-01

International Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome. We aimed to derive HFpEF phenotype-based groups based on clinical features using machine learning, and to compare clinical characteristics, outcomes and treatment response across the phenogroups.METHODS:We applied model-based clustering to 11 clinical and laboratory variables collected in 970 HFpEF patients. An additional 290 HFpEF patients was enrolled as a validation cohort. During 5-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was used as the primary endpoints, and composite endpoints (all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization) were set as the secondary endpoint.RESULTS:We identified three phenogroups, for which significant differences in the age and gender, the prevalence of concomitant ischaemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes mellitus, the burden of B-type natriuretic peptide level and HF symptoms. Patients with phenogroup 3 had higher all-cause mortality or composite endpoints, whereas patients in phenogroup 1 had less adverse events after 5-year follow-up. Moreover, it was indicated that beta-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or composite endpoints in phenogroup 3, instead of the other phenogroups. This HFpEF phenogroup classification, including its ability to stratify risk, was successfully replicated in a prospective validation cohort.CONCLUSION:Machine-learning based clustering strategy is used to identify three distinct phenogroups of HFpEF that are characterized by significant differences in comorbidity burden, underlying cardiac abnormalities, and long-term prognosis. Beta-blockers or ACEI/ARB therapy is associated with a lower risk of adverse events in specific phenogroup.
Genetic Biomarkers in Heart Failure: From Gene Panels to Polygenic Risk Scores

Marta Figueiral,Alessia Paldino,Luca Fazzini,Naveen L Pereira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-024-00687-5

Abstract:Purpose of review: This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of genetic markers associated with heart failure (HF) and its underlying causative diseases, such as cardiomyopathies. It highlights the relevance of genetic biomarkers in diagnosing HF, predicting prognosis, potentially identifying its preclinical stages and identifying targets to enable the implementation of individualized medicine approaches. Recent findings: The prevalence of HF is increasing due to an aging population but with greater access to disease-modifying therapies. Advanced diagnostic tools such as cardiac magnetic resonance, nuclear imaging, and AI-enabled diagnostic testing are now being utilized to further characterize HF patients. Additionally, the importance of genetic testing in HF diagnosis and management is increasingly being recognized. Genetic biomarkers, including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and rare genetic variants, are emerging as crucial tools for diagnosing HF substrates, determining prognosis and increasingly directing therapy. These genetic insights are key to optimizing HF management and delivering personalized treatment tailored to individual patients. HF is a complex syndrome affecting millions globally, characterized by high mortality and significant economic burden. Understanding the underlying etiologies of HF is essential for improving management and clinical outcomes. Recent advances highlight the use of multimodal assessments, including AI-enabled diagnostics and genetic testing, to better characterize and manage HF. Genetic biomarkers are particularly promising in identifying preclinical HF stages and providing personalized treatment options. The genetic contribution to HF is heterogeneous, with both monogenic and polygenic bases playing a role. These developments underscore the shift towards personalized medicine in HF management.
Distinct Profiles and New Pharmacological Targets for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Alberto Palazzuoli,Paolo Severino,Andrea D'Amato,Vincenzo Myftari,Lucia Tricarico,Michele Correale,Giuseppe Dattilo,Francesco Fioretti,Savina Nodari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2507270

2024-07-23

Abstract:Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial condition with a variety of pathophysiological causes and morphological manifestations. The inclusion criteria and patient classification have become overly simplistic due to the customary differentiation regarding the ejection fraction (EF) cutoff. EF is considered a measure of systolic function; nevertheless, it only represents a portion of the true contractile state and has been shown to have certain limits due to methodological and hemodynamic irregularities. Methods: As a result, broader randomized clinical trials have yet to incorporate the most recent criteria for HFpEF diagnosis, leading to a lack of data consistency and confusion in interpreting the results. The primary variations between the bigger clinical trials published in this context concerning patient selection and echocardiographic characteristics were analyzed. For all these reasons, we aim to clarify the main features and clinical impact of HFpEF in a study combining imaging, bio-humoral analysis, and clinical history to identify the specific subgroups that respond better to tailored treatment. Results: Disparate clinical characteristics and a lack of uniform diagnostic standards may cause suboptimal therapeutic feedback. To optimize treatment, we suggest shifting the paradigm from the straightforward EF measurement to a more comprehensive model that considers additional information, such as structural traits, related disorders, and biological and environmental data. Therefore, by evaluating certain echocardiographic and clinical factors, a stepwise diagnostic procedure may be useful in identifying patients at high risk, subjects with early HFpEF, and those with evident HFpEF. Conclusions: The present assessment underscores the significance of the precision medicine approach in guaranteeing optimal patient outcomes by providing the best care according to each distinct profile.
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenogroup classification using machine learning

Atsushi Kyodo,Koshiro Kanaoka,Ayaka Keshi,Maki Nogi,Kazutaka Nogi,Satomi Ishihara,Daisuke Kamon,Yukihiro Hashimoto,Yasuki Nakada,Tomoya Ueda,Ayako Seno,Taku Nishida,Kenji Onoue,Tsuneari Soeda,Rika Kawakami,Makoto Watanabe,Toshiyuki Nagai,Toshihisa Anzai,Yoshihiko Saito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14368

Abstract:Aims: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex syndrome with a poor prognosis. Phenotyping is required to identify subtype-dependent treatment strategies. Phenotypes of Japanese HFpEF patients are not fully elucidated, whose obesity is much less than Western patients. This study aimed to reveal model-based phenomapping using unsupervised machine learning (ML) for HFpEF in Japanese patients. Methods and results: We studied 365 patients with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >50%) as a derivation cohort from the Nara Registry and Analyses for Heart Failure (NARA-HF), which registered patients with hospitalization by acute decompensated HF. We used unsupervised ML with a variational Bayesian-Gaussian mixture model (VBGMM) with common clinical variables. We also performed hierarchical clustering on the derivation cohort. We adopted 230 patients in the Japanese Heart Failure Syndrome with Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry as the validation cohort for VBGMM. The primary endpoint was defined as all-cause death and HF readmission within 5 years. Supervised ML was performed on the composite cohort of derivation and validation. The optimal number of clusters was three because of the probable distribution of VBGMM and the minimum Bayesian information criterion, and we stratified HFpEF into three phenogroups. Phenogroup 1 (n = 125) was older (mean age 78.9 ± 9.1 years) and predominantly male (57.6%), with the worst kidney function (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 28.5 ± 9.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) and a high incidence of atherosclerotic factor. Phenogroup 2 (n = 200) had older individuals (mean age 78.8 ± 9.7 years), the lowest body mass index (BMI; 22.78 ± 3.94), and the highest incidence of women (57.5%) and atrial fibrillation (56.5%). Phenogroup 3 (n = 40) was the youngest (mean age 63.5 ± 11.2) and predominantly male (63.5 ± 11.2), with the highest BMI (27.46 ± 5.85) and a high incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy. We characterized these three phenogroups as atherosclerosis and chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and younger and left ventricular hypertrophy groups, respectively. At the primary endpoint, Phenogroup 1 demonstrated the worst prognosis (Phenogroups 1-3: 72.0% vs. 58.5% vs. 45%, P = 0.0036). We also successfully classified a derivation cohort into three similar phenogroups using VBGMM. Hierarchical and supervised clustering successfully showed the reproducibility of the three phenogroups. Conclusions: ML could successfully stratify Japanese HFpEF patients into three phenogroups (atherosclerosis and chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and younger and left ventricular hypertrophy groups).
Clinical-transcriptional prioritization of the circulating proteome in human heart failure

Andrew S Perry,Kaushik Amancherla,Xiaoning Huang,Michelle L Lance,Eric Farber-Eger,Priya Gajjar,Junedh Amrute,Lindsey Stolze,Shilin Zhao,Quanhu Sheng,Cassandra M Joynes,Zhongsheng Peng,Toshiko Tanaka,Stavros G Drakos,Kory J Lavine,Craig Selzman,Joseph R Visker,Thirupura S Shankar,Luigi Ferrucci,Saumya Das,Jane Wilcox,Ravi B Patel,Ravi Kalhan,Sanjiv J Shah,Keenan A Walker,Quinn Wells,Nathan Tucker,Matthew Nayor,Ravi V Shah,Sadiya S Khan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101704

2024-08-30

Abstract:Given expanding studies in epidemiology and disease-oriented human studies offering hundreds of associations between the human "ome" and disease, prioritizing molecules relevant to disease mechanisms among this growing breadth is important. Here, we link the circulating proteome to human heart failure (HF) propensity (via echocardiographic phenotyping and clinical outcomes) across the lifespan, demonstrating key pathways of fibrosis, inflammation, metabolism, and hypertrophy. We observe a broad array of genes encoding proteins linked to HF phenotypes and outcomes in clinical populations dynamically expressed at a transcriptional level in human myocardium during HF and cardiac recovery (several in a cell-specific fashion). Many identified targets do not have wide precedent in large-scale genomic discovery or human studies, highlighting the complementary roles for proteomic and tissue transcriptomic discovery to focus epidemiological targets to those relevant in human myocardium for further interrogation.
Biological Phenotypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Gavin A Lewis,Erik B Schelbert,Simon G Williams,Colin Cunnington,Fozia Ahmed,Theresa A McDonagh,Christopher A Miller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.006

2017-10-24

Abstract:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) involves multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, which result in the heterogeneous phenotypes that are evident clinically, and which have potentially confounded previous HFpEF trials. A greater understanding of the in vivo human processes involved, and in particular, which are the causes and which are the downstream effects, may allow the syndrome of HFpEF to be distilled into distinct diagnoses based on the underlying biology. From this, specific interventions can follow, targeting individuals identified on the basis of their biological phenotype. This review describes the biological phenotypes of HFpEF and therapeutic interventions aimed at targeting these phenotypes.
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: key stumbling blocks for experimental drugs in clinical trials

Amanda Lloji,Jayakumar Sreenivasan,Joel Novograd,Wilbert S. Aronow,Stephen Pan,Gregg M. Lanier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2022.2069009

2022-04-27

Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs

Abstract:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a disease with a high prevalence. Accounting for more than 50% of all heart failure cases, it carries a significant mortality. There is a lack of therapeutic options that show improvement in morbidity and mortality. Certain novel therapies have shown a decrease in heart failure hospitalizations; however, this beneficial effect was more pronounced for heart failure patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF).This review summarizes the pathophysiology of the disease to help elucidate the differences between heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and HFpEF, which could explain why therapies are successful in one (rather than the other). This review focuses on non-standardized nomenclature across major trials, the challenges of finding a therapeutic agent for such a heterogeneous population, and identification of specific phenotypes that have different outcomes and could be a target for future therapies.Lack of standardized diagnostic criteria, associated with population heterogeneity, might explain why trials have failed to improve outcomes for patients with HFpEF. Standardizing phenotypes, recapitulating these phenotypes in animal models, and understanding the mechanisms of the disease at the molecular level could be the first steps in identifying promising therapeutic options.

pharmacology & pharmacy
A Phenotyping of Diastolic Function by Machine Learning Improves Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure

Haruka Kameshima,Tokuhisa Uejima,Alan G Fraser,Lisa Takahashi,Junyi Cho,Shinya Suzuki,Yuko Kato,Junji Yajima,Takeshi Yamashita

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.755109

2021-12-23

Abstract:Background: Discriminating between different patterns of diastolic dysfunction in heart failure (HF) is still challenging. We tested the hypothesis that an unsupervised machine learning algorithm would detect heterogeneity in diastolic function and improve risk stratification compared with recommended consensus criteria. Methods: This study included 279 consecutive patients aged 24-97 years old with clinically stable HF referred for echocardiographic assessment, in whom diastolic variables were measured according to the current guidelines. Cluster analysis was undertaken to identify homogeneous groups of patients with similar profiles of the variables. Sequential Cox models were used to compare cluster-based classification with guidelines-based classification for predicting clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for worsening HF. Results: The analysis identified three clusters with distinct properties of diastolic function that shared similarities with guidelines-based classification. The clusters were associated with brain natriuretic peptide level (p < 0.001), hemoglobin concentration (p = 0.017) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.001). During a mean follow-up period of 2.6 ± 2.0 years, 62 patients (22%) experienced the primary endpoint. Cluster-based classification predicted events with a hazard ratio 1.68 (p = 0.019) that was independent from and incremental to the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk score for HF, and from left ventricular end-diastolic volume and global longitudinal strain, whereas guidelines-based classification did not retain its independent prognostic value (hazard ratio = 1.25, p = 0.202). Conclusion: Machine learning can identify patterns of diastolic function that better stratify the risk for decompensation than the current consensus recommendations in HF. Integrating this data-driven phenotyping may help in refining prognostication and optimizing treatment.

Editorial: Novel phenotyping and risk stratification strategies for heart failure

Heart failure: advanced development in genetics and epigenetics.

Editorial: Risk Stratification Strategies for Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and the Future of Heart Failure Phenotyping

Abstract 4129533: Phenotypes and Clinical Outcome of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (hfpef) Patients in China: Findings from the Chinese Cardiovascular Association Database-Heart Failure Center Registry

42855 A Phenomics Approach to the Categorization and Refinement of Heart Failure

Using Model‐Based Analysis and Physiology‐Informed Machine Learning to Refine the Stratification of Phenotypes in Heart Failure

Machine learning based on biomarker profiles identifies distinct subgroups of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Novel Strategies in Diagnosing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Viewing the future research directions of heart failure from ge's phenotyping of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data

Distinguishing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A phenomics approach

Clinical phenogroups are more effective than left ventricular ejection fraction categories in stratifying heart failure outcomes

Characteristics, Prognosis and Treatment Response in Distinct Phenogroups of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Genetic Biomarkers in Heart Failure: From Gene Panels to Polygenic Risk Scores

Distinct Profiles and New Pharmacological Targets for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenogroup classification using machine learning

Clinical-transcriptional prioritization of the circulating proteome in human heart failure

Biological Phenotypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: key stumbling blocks for experimental drugs in clinical trials

A Phenotyping of Diastolic Function by Machine Learning Improves Prediction of Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure