Phenotyping heart failure using model-based analysis and physiology-informed machine learning
Journal of Physiology, ISSN: 1469-7793, Vol: 599, Issue: 22, Page: 4991-5013
2021
- 23Citations
- 51Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations23
- Citation Indexes23
- 23
- CrossRef11
- Captures51
- Readers51
- 51
Article Description
Abstract: To phenotype mechanistic differences between heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, a closed-loop model of the cardiovascular system coupled with patient-specific transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and right heart catheterization (RHC) data was used to identify key parameters representing haemodynamics. 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 plotted against model-based norms and compared between HFrEF and HFpEF. Our results confirm the main mechanistic parameter driving HFrEF is reduced left ventricular (LV) contractility, whereas HFpEF exhibits a heterogeneous phenotype. Conducting principal component analysis, (Formula presented.) -means clustering, and hierarchical clustering on the optimized parameters reveal (i) a group of HFrEF-like HFpEF patients (HFpEF1), (ii) a classic HFpEF group (HFpEF2), and (iii) a group of HFpEF patients that do not consistently cluster (NCC). These subgroups cannot be distinguished from the clinical data alone. Increased LV active contractility ((Formula presented.)) and LV passive stiffness ((Formula presented.)) at rest are observed when comparing HFpEF2 to HFpEF1. Analysing the clinical data of each subgroup reveals that elevated systolic and diastolic LV volumes seen in both HFrEF and HFpEF1 may be used as a biomarker to identify HFrEF-like HFpEF patients. These results suggest that modelling of the cardiovascular system and optimizing to standard clinical data can designate subgroups of HFpEF as separate phenotypes, possibly elucidating patient-specific treatment strategies. Key points: Analysis of data from right heart catheterization (RHC) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) of heart failure (HF) patients using a closed-loop model of the cardiovascular system identifies key parameters representing haemodynamic cardiovascular function in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF). Analysing optimized parameters representing cardiovascular function using machine learning shows mechanistic differences between HFpEF groups that are not seen analysing clinical data alone. HFpEF groups presented here can be subdivided into three subgroups: HFpEF1 described as ‘HFrEF-like HFpEF’, HFpEF2 as ‘classic HFpEF’, and a third group of HFpEF patients that do not consistently cluster. Focusing purely on cardiac function consistently captures the underlying dysfunction in HFrEF, whereas HFpEF is better characterized by dysfunction in the entire cardiovascular system. Our methodology reveals that elevated left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes are potential biomarkers for identifying HFrEF-like HFpEF patients.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know