Hemodynamic profiles by non-invasive monitoring of cardiac index and vascular tone in acute heart failure patients in the emergency department: External validation and clinical outcomes.

Abstract

BackgroundNon-invasive finger-cuff monitors measuring cardiac index and vascular tone (SVRI) classify emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) into three otherwise-indistinguishable subgroups. Our goals were to validate these "hemodynamic profiles" in an external cohort and assess their association with clinical outcomes.MethodsAHF patients (n = 257) from five EDs were prospectively enrolled in the validation cohort (VC). Cardiac index and SVRI were measured with a ClearSight finger-cuff monitor (formerly NexFin, Edwards Lifesciences) as in a previous study (derivation cohort, DC, n = 127). A control cohort (CC, n = 127) of ED patients with sepsis was drawn from the same study as the DC. K-means cluster analysis previously derived two-dimensional (cardiac index and SVRI) hemodynamic profiles in the DC and CC (k = 3 profiles each). The VC was subgrouped de novo into three analogous profiles by unsupervised K-means consensus clustering. PERMANOVA tested whether VC profiles 1-3 differed from profiles 1-3 in the DC and CC, by multivariate group composition of cardiac index and vascular tone. Profiles in the VC were compared by a primary outcome of 90-day mortality and a 30-day ranked composite secondary outcome (death, mechanical cardiac support, intubation, new/emergent dialysis, coronary intervention/surgery) as time-to-event (survival analysis) and binary events (odds ratio, OR). Descriptive statistics were used to compare profiles by two validated risk scores for the primary outcome, and one validated score for the secondary outcome.ResultsThe VC had median age 60 years (interquartile range {49-67}), and was 45% (n = 116) female. Multivariate profile composition by cardiac index and vascular tone differed significantly between VC profiles 1-3 and CC profiles 1-3 (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.159). A difference was not detected between profiles in the VC vs. the DC (p = 0.59, R2 = 0.016). VC profile 3 had worse 90-day survival than profiles 1 or 2 (HR = 4.8, 95%CI 1.4-17.1). The ranked secondary outcome was more likely in profile 1 (OR = 10.0, 1.2-81.2) and profile 3 (12.8, 1.7-97.9) compared to profile 2. Diabetes prevalence and blood urea nitrogen were lower in the high-risk profile 3 (pConclusionsHemodynamic profiles in ED patients with AHF, by non-invasive finger-cuff monitoring of cardiac index and vascular tone, were replicated de novo in an external cohort. Profiles showed significantly different risks of clinically-important adverse patient outcomes.