Abstract 12418: Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Decompensated Heart Failure and Clonal Haematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: CHIP is associated with inflammation, atherogenesis and poor outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Although inflammation may be important in the pathophysiology of HFpEF, CHIP has not previously been assessed in patients with HFpEF. We examined the prevalence of CHIP and its associated clinical characteristics in patients with HFpEF or HFrEF. Methods: Error-corrected targeting sequencing of 75 known haematopoietic driver genes was performed on peripheral blood DNA from patients admitted to hospital with acute HF (HFrEF [LVEF<40%] and HFpEF [LVEF≥40%]). CHIP mutations and their associated clonal population size were analysed and associations with clinical phenotypes and inflammatory markers were assessed. Results: 96 patients were enrolled; 48 had HFrEF and 48 had HFpEF. CHIP mutations with VAF ≥2% were detected in 5 patients with HFrEF (10%) and 8 patients with HFpEF (17%). CHIP mutations with VAF ≥1% were detected in 25 patients with HFrEF (52%) and 21 patients with HFpEF (44%). HFrEF patients with CHIP were a similar age to those without CHIP (71.1 ± 14.2yrs CHIP vs 68.9 ± 13.0yrs without CHIP; p=0.58) but HFpEF patients with CHIP were older than those without CHIP (80.1 ± 8.8yrs CHIP vs 70.0 ± 12.3yrs no CHIP; p=0.002). There was an age-dependent rise in CHIP prevalence which appeared greater in patients with HFpEF than HFrEF. DNMT3A was the most commonly mutated gene. Patients with CHIP had higher concentrations of pro-inflammatory interleukins but CHIP was not associated with previous MI or NT-proBNP. Conclusions: There is a substantial prevalence of CHIP in patients admitted to hospital with HF. In this cohort, CHIP was uncommon in patients with HFpEF under the age of 70 years but was frequent in older patients. The association between age and CHIP was stronger in HFpEF than HFrEF. CHIP was associated with inflammation. Its potential role in the pathogenesis of HF warrants further exploration in larger groups, including in elderly patients with HFpEF.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».