Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Distinct implications of body mass index in different subgroups of nonobese patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a latent class analysis of data from the TOPCAT trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Distinct implications of body mass index in different subgroups of nonobese patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a latent class analysis of data from the TOPCAT trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Distinct implications of body mass index in different subgroups of nonobese patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a latent class analysis of data from the TOPCAT trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Distinct implications of body mass index in different subgroups of nonobese patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a latent class analysis of data from the TOPCAT trial
2022
Overview
Background
Obesity is a well-defined risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but it is associated with a better prognosis in patients with diagnosed HFpEF. The paradoxically poor prognosis in nonobese patients with HFpEF may be driven by a subset of high-risk patients, which suggests that the nonobese HFpEF subpopulation is heterogeneous.
Methods
Latent class analysis (LCA) was adopted to identify the potential subgroups of 623 nonobese patients enrolled in the TOPCAT trial. The baseline characteristics of the identified nonobese subgroups were compared with each other and with the obese patients. The risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality, and an HF composite outcome were also compared.
Results
Two subgroups of nonobese patients with HFpEF (the physiological non-obesity and the pathological non-obesity) were identified. The obese patients were younger than both nonobese subgroups. The clinical profile of patients with pathological non-obesity was poorer than that of patients with physiological non-obesity. They had more comorbidities, more severe HF, poorer quality of life, and lower levels of physical activity. Patients with pathological non-obesity showed low serum hemoglobin and albumin levels. After 2 years of follow-up, more patients in the pathological group lost ≥ 10% of body weight compared with those in the physiological group (11.34% vs. 4.19%,
P
= 0.009). The prognostic implications of the two subgroups were opposite. Compared to patients with obesity, patients with physiological non-obesity had a 47% decrease in the risk of HF composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.70,
P
<0.001) and a trend of decreased all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.01,
P
=0.06), while patients with pathological non-obesity had a 59% increase (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24–2.02,
P
<0.001) in all-cause mortality risk.
Conclusions
Two subgroups of nonobese patients with HFpEF with distinct clinical profiles and prognostic implications were identified. The low BMI was likely physiological in one group but pathological in the other group. Using a data-driven approach, our study provided an alternative explanation for the “obesity paradox” that the poor prognosis of nonobese patients with HFpEF was driven by a pathological subgroup.
