Clustering of patients with inconclusive non-invasive stress testing referred for vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance - 12/11/22
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder
Highlights |
• | Among a heterogenous population of patients with inconclusive noninvasive stress testing, unsupervised hierarchical clustering approach enabled to determine 3 mutually exclusive and clinically distinct phenogroups. |
• | The 3 phenogroups of patients with an inconclusive stress test have distinct outcomes in terms of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. |
• | Using the clustering analysis, patients in the phenogroup with the worse prognosis (history of CABG and reduced LVEF) could benefit the most from treatment intensification and new therapy. |
• | While the presence of inducible ischemia was involved in the clustering method, inducible ischemia by stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance was associated with the occurrence of CV events in each phenogroup. |
Abstract |
Background |
Inconclusive non-invasive stress testing is associated with impaired outcome. This population is very heterogeneous, and its characteristics are not well depicted by conventional methods.
Aims |
To identify patient subgroups by phenotypic unsupervised clustering, integrating clinical and cardiovascular magnetic resonance data to unveil pathophysiological differences between subgroups of patients with inconclusive stress tests.
Methods |
Between 2008 and 2020, consecutive patients with a first inconclusive non-invasive stress test referred for stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance were followed for the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction). A cluster analysis was performed on clinical and cardiovascular magnetic resonance variables.
Results |
Of 1402 patients (67% male; mean age 70±11years) who completed the follow-up (median 6.5years, interquartile range 5.6–7.5years), 197 experienced major adverse cardiovascular events (14.1%). Three distinct phenogroups were identified based upon unsupervised hierarchical clustering of principal components: phenogroup 1=history of percutaneous coronary intervention with viable myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction; phenogroup 2=atrial fibrillation with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction; and phenogroup 3=coronary artery bypass graft with non-viable myocardial scar and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Using survival analysis, the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (P=0.007), cardiovascular mortality (P=0.002) and all-cause mortality (P<0.001) differed among the three phenogroups. Phenogroup 3 presented the worse prognosis. In each phenogroup, ischaemia was associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (phenogroup 1: hazard ratio 2.79, 95% confidence interval 1.61–4.84; phenogroup 2: hazard ratio 2.59, 95% confidence interval 1.69–3.97; phenogroup 3: hazard ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.82–5.49; all P<0.001).
Conclusions |
Cluster analysis of clinical and cardiovascular magnetic resonance variables identified three phenogroups of patients with inconclusive stress testing, with distinct prognostic profiles.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Clustering, Inconclusive stress test, Stress testing, Cardiovascular magnetic resonance, Cardiovascular events
Abbreviations : CABG, CAD, CI, CMR, HCPC, HR, LGE, LV, LVEF, MACE, PAD, PCI, PG1, PG2, PG3, RV, SPECT
Plan
| ☆ | Tweet: A clustering paper just published by @PezelT et al. from @ICPS_institut evaluating the phenomapping of patients with inconclusive stress test and its prognostic value. Twitter address: @PezelT. |
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?