Regrouping Afib: 4 categories of patients defined

Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • When patients with Afib are analyzed based on features that group them together, they cluster into 4 clinical subtypes that fall outside conventional Afib categories.
  • These 4 types are clinically relevant, the study authors say, and differ in comorbidities and cardiovascular outcomes.
  • These novel clusters suggest that conventional classifications involve considerable patient heterogeneity.

Why this matters

  • Using individual-level data to define patient groupings based on comorbidities and other features might yield more targetable endpoints than using conventional parameters does. 
  • The analysis used here, called “cluster analysis,” has been used in other diseases, and the authors say that it enhances identification of subtypes.

Study design

  • Cluster analysis of 9749 patients with Afib.
  • Patients classified into low comorbidity (LC; n=4673), younger/behavioral disorder (YBD; n=963), device implantation (DI; n=1651), and atherosclerotic-comorbid (A-Co; n=2462) clusters.
  • Funding: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.

Key results

  • Risk for major adverse cardiovascular/neurological events (MACNE) was lowest in LC cluster (2.58 events/100 patient-years; P<.001).
  • Compared with LC cluster, risk for MACNE was significantly higher in YBD (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.00); DI (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.68), and A-Co (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92) clusters.
  • Similar clusters were identified in external validation cohort.

Limitations

  • Limited generalizability.

Coauthored with Antara Ghosh, PhD