ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Clinical and Therapeutic Phenotypic Clustering and Prognostic Stratification in Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly coexists with heart failure (HF), but its prognostic impact remains uncertain. This study aimed to identify phenotypic subgroups of HF patients with AF and assess their clinical outcomes. Methods: A total of 407 hospitalized HF patients with AF on admission were analyzed. Key prognostic factors (age, sex, NT-proBNP, creatinine, hemoglobin, albumin, and use of β-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors) were standardized and subjected to hierarchical cluster analysis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and HF readmission. Results: Four phenotypes with distinct clinical profiles were identified. Phenotype 1 comprised younger, predominantly male patients with relatively reduced left ventricular ejection fraction but preserved systemic condition and the highest use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), resulting in the most favorable outcomes. Phenotype 2 showed intermediate frailty and moderate GDMT use. Phenotype 3 was characterized by advanced age, systemic impairment, renal dysfunction, and anemia. Phenotype 4 represented the oldest and most frail patients with severe malnutrition and minimal GDMT use. During a median follow-up of 612 days, Cox analysis demonstrated progressively increasing risk for the composite endpoint compared with Phenotype 1 (hazard ratios: 1.87, 3.80, and 4.60; Conclusions: HF patients with AF exhibit four distinct phenotypes associated with progressively worsening outcomes. Phenotypic stratification may improve individualized risk assessment and therapeutic decision-making in this high-risk population. Trial Registration: Data were obtained from the Acute Heart Failure Registry in the Osaka Rosai Hospital (AURORA; UMIN000045096).
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.