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, k -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 ( p < 0.001 ) and LV passive stiffness ( p < 0.001 ) 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.