Dillon, John

ABSTRACT Background Hospitalized patients with hypokalemia are heterogeneous and cluster analysis, an unsupervised machine learning methodology, may discover more precise and specific homogeneous groups within this population of interest. Our study aimed to cluster patients with hypokalemia at hospital admission using an unsupervised machine learning approach and assess the mortality risk among these distinct clusters. Methods We performed consensus clustering analysis based on demographic information, principal diagnoses, comorbidities and laboratory data among 4763 hospitalized adult patients with admission serum potassium ≤3.5 mEq/L. We calculated the standardized mean difference of each variable and used the cutoff of ±0.3 to identify each cluster's key features. We assessed the association of the hypokalemia cluster with hospital and 1-year mortality. Results Consensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters that best represented patients’ baseline characteristics. Cluster 1 had 1150 (32%) patients, cluster 2 had 1344 (28%) patients and cluster 3 had 1909 (40%) patients. Based on the standardized difference, patients in cluster 1 were younger, had less comorbidity burden but higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and higher hemoglobin; patients in cluster 2 were older, more likely to be admitted for cardiovascular disease and had higher serum sodium and chloride levels but lower eGFR, serum bicarbonate, strong ion difference (SID) and hemoglobin, while patients in cluster 3 were older, had a greater comorbidity burden, higher serum bicarbonate and SID but lower serum sodium, chloride and eGFR. Compared with cluster 1, cluster 2 had both higher hospital and 1-year mortality, whereas cluster 3 had higher 1-year mortality but comparable hospital mortality. Conclusion Our study demonstrated the use of consensus clustering analysis in the heterogeneous cohort of hospitalized hypokalemic patients to characterize their patterns of baseline clinical and laboratory data into three clinically distinct clusters with different mortality risks.

Background: We aimed to cluster patients with acute kidney injury at hospital admission into clinically distinct subtypes using an unsupervised machine learning approach and assess the mortality risk among the distinct clusters. Methods: We performed consensus clustering analysis based on demographic information, principal diagnoses, comorbidities, and laboratory data among 4289 hospitalized adult patients with acute kidney injury at admission. The standardized difference of each variable was calculated to identify each cluster’s key features. We assessed the association of each acute kidney injury cluster with hospital and one-year mortality. Results: Consensus clustering analysis identified four distinct clusters. There were 1201 (28%) patients in cluster 1, 1396 (33%) patients in cluster 2, 1191 (28%) patients in cluster 3, and 501 (12%) patients in cluster 4. Cluster 1 patients were the youngest and had the least comorbidities. Cluster 2 and cluster 3 patients were older and had lower baseline kidney function. Cluster 2 patients had lower serum bicarbonate, strong ion difference, and hemoglobin, but higher serum chloride, whereas cluster 3 patients had lower serum chloride but higher serum bicarbonate and strong ion difference. Cluster 4 patients were younger and more likely to be admitted for genitourinary disease and infectious disease but less likely to be admitted for cardiovascular disease. Cluster 4 patients also had more severe acute kidney injury, lower serum sodium, serum chloride, and serum bicarbonate, but higher serum potassium and anion gap. Cluster 2, 3, and 4 patients had significantly higher hospital and one-year mortality than cluster 1 patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated using machine learning consensus clustering analysis to characterize a heterogeneous cohort of patients with acute kidney injury on hospital admission into four clinically distinct clusters with different associated mortality risks.

Background: The goal of this study was to categorize patients with abnormal serum phosphate upon hospital admission into distinct clusters utilizing an unsupervised machine learning approach, and to assess the mortality risk associated with these clusters. Methods: We utilized the consensus clustering approach on demographic information, comorbidities, principal diagnoses, and laboratory data of hypophosphatemia (serum phosphate ≤ 2.4 mg/dL) and hyperphosphatemia cohorts (serum phosphate ≥ 4.6 mg/dL). The standardized mean difference was applied to determine each cluster’s key features. We assessed the association of the clusters with mortality. Results: In the hypophosphatemia cohort (n = 3113), the consensus cluster analysis identified two clusters. The key features of patients in Cluster 2, compared with Cluster 1, included: older age; a higher comorbidity burden, particularly hypertension; diabetes mellitus; coronary artery disease; lower eGFR; and more acute kidney injury (AKI) at admission. Cluster 2 had a comparable hospital mortality (3.7% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.17), but a higher one-year mortality (26.8% vs. 14.0%; p < 0.001), and five-year mortality (20.2% vs. 44.3%; p < 0.001), compared to Cluster 1. In the hyperphosphatemia cohort (n = 7252), the analysis identified two clusters. The key features of patients in Cluster 2, compared with Cluster 1, included: older age; more primary admission for kidney disease; more history of hypertension; more end-stage kidney disease; more AKI at admission; and higher admission potassium, magnesium, and phosphate. Cluster 2 had a higher hospital (8.9% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.001) one-year mortality (32.9% vs. 14.8%; p < 0.001), and five-year mortality (24.5% vs. 51.1%; p < 0.001), compared with Cluster 1. Conclusion: Our cluster analysis classified clinically distinct phenotypes with different mortality risks among hospitalized patients with serum phosphate derangements. Age, comorbidities, and kidney function were the key features that differentiated the phenotypes.

Background and Objectives: Despite the association between hyperchloremia and adverse outcomes, mortality risks among patients with hyperchloremia have not consistently been observed among all studies with different patient populations with hyperchloremia. The objective of this study was to characterize hyperchloremic patients at hospital admission into clusters using an unsupervised machine learning approach and to evaluate the mortality risk among these distinct clusters. Materials and Methods: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on demographic information, principal diagnoses, comorbidities, and laboratory data among 11,394 hospitalized adult patients with admission serum chloride of >108 mEq/L. We calculated the standardized mean difference of each variable to identify each cluster’s key features. We assessed the association of each hyperchloremia cluster with hospital and one-year mortality. Results: There were three distinct clusters of patients with admission hyperchloremia: 3237 (28%), 4059 (36%), and 4098 (36%) patients in clusters 1 through 3, respectively. Cluster 1 was characterized by higher serum chloride but lower serum sodium, bicarbonate, hemoglobin, and albumin. Cluster 2 was characterized by younger age, lower comorbidity score, lower serum chloride, and higher estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR), hemoglobin, and albumin. Cluster 3 was characterized by older age, higher comorbidity score, higher serum sodium, potassium, and lower eGFR. Compared with cluster 2, odds ratios for hospital mortality were 3.60 (95% CI 2.33–5.56) for cluster 1, and 4.83 (95% CI 3.21–7.28) for cluster 3, whereas hazard ratios for one-year mortality were 4.49 (95% CI 3.53–5.70) for cluster 1 and 6.96 (95% CI 5.56–8.72) for cluster 3. Conclusions: Our cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct phenotypes with differing mortality risks in hospitalized patients with admission hyperchloremia.

Background: The objective of this study was to characterize patients with hyponatremia at hospital admission into clusters using an unsupervised machine learning approach, and to evaluate the short- and long-term mortality risk among these distinct clusters. Methods: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on demographic information, principal diagnoses, comorbidities, and laboratory data among 11,099 hospitalized adult hyponatremia patients with an admission serum sodium below 135 mEq/L. The standardized mean difference was utilized to identify each cluster’s key features. We assessed the association of each hyponatremia cluster with hospital and one-year mortality using logistic and Cox proportional hazard analysis, respectively. Results: There were three distinct clusters of hyponatremia patients: 2033 (18%) in cluster 1, 3064 (28%) in cluster 2, and 6002 (54%) in cluster 3. Among these three distinct clusters, clusters 3 patients were the youngest, had lowest comorbidity burden, and highest kidney function. Cluster 1 patients were more likely to be admitted for genitourinary disease, and have diabetes and end-stage kidney disease. Cluster 1 patients had the lowest kidney function, serum bicarbonate, and hemoglobin, but highest serum potassium and prevalence of acute kidney injury. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were the oldest and were more likely to be admitted for respiratory disease, have coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cluster 2 patients had lowest serum sodium and serum chloride, but highest serum bicarbonate. Cluster 1 patients had the highest hospital mortality and one-year mortality, followed by cluster 2 and cluster 3, respectively. Conclusion: We identified three clinically distinct phenotypes with differing mortality risks in a heterogeneous cohort of hospitalized hyponatremic patients using an unsupervised machine learning approach.

Summary Background Hospitalized patients with hyperkalemia are heterogeneous, and cluster approaches may identify specific homogenous groups. This study aimed to cluster patients with hyperkalemia on admission using unsupervised machine learning (ML) consensus clustering approach, and to compare characteristics and outcomes among these distinct clusters. Methods Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 5133 hospitalized adult patients with admission hyperkalemia, based on available clinical and laboratory data. The standardized mean difference was used to identify each cluster’s key clinical features. The association of hyperkalemia clusters with hospital and 1-year mortality was assessed using logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression. Results Three distinct clusters of hyperkalemia patients were identified using consensus cluster analysis: 1661 (32%) in cluster 1, 2455 (48%) in cluster 2 and 1017 (20%) in cluster 3. Cluster 1 was mainly characterized by older age, higher serum chloride and acute kidney injury (AKI), but lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), serum bicarbonate and hemoglobin. Cluster 2 was mainly characterized by higher eGFR, serum bicarbonate and hemoglobin, but lower comorbidity burden, serum potassium and AKI. Cluster 3 was mainly characterized by higher comorbidity burden, particularly diabetes and end-stage kidney disease, AKI, serum potassium, anion gap, but lower eGFR, serum sodium, chloride and bicarbonate. Hospital and 1-year mortality risk was significantly different among the three identified clusters, with highest mortality in cluster 3, followed by cluster 1 and then cluster 2. Conclusion In a heterogeneous cohort of hyperkalemia patients, three distinct clusters were identified using unsupervised ML. These three clusters had different clinical characteristics and outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionEmerging medical technology has allowed for monitoring of heart rhythm abnormalities using smartphone compatible devices. The safety and utility of such devices have not been established in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We sought to assess the safety and compatibility of the Food and Drug Administration‐approved AliveCor Kardia device in patients with CIEDs.Methods and ResultsWe prospectively recruited patients with CIED for a Kardia recording during their routine device interrogation. A recording was obtained in paced and nonpaced states. Adverse clinical events were noted at the time of recording. Electrograms (EGMs) from the cardiac device were obtained at the time of recording to assess for any electromagnetic interference (EMI) introduced by Kardia. Recordings were analyzed for quality and given a score of 3 (interpretable rhythm, no noise), 2 (interpretable rhythm, significant noise) or 1 (uninterpretable). A total of 251 patients were recruited (59% with a pacemaker and 41% with ICD). There were no adverse clinical events noted at the time of recording and no changes to CIED settings. Review of all EGMs revealed no EMI introduced by Kardia. Recordings were correctly interpreted in 90% of paced recordings (183 had a score of 3, 43 of 2, and 25 of 1) and 94.7% of nonpaced recordings (147 of 3, 15 of 2, and 9 of 1).ConclusionThe AliveCor Kardia device has an excellent safety profile when used in conjunction with most CIEDs. The quality of recordings was preserved in this population. The device, therefore, can be considered for heart rhythm monitoring in patients with CIEDs.

Background and objectives Withdrawal from maintenance hemodialysis before death has become more common because of high disease and treatment burden. The study objective was to identify patient factors and examine the terminal course associated with hemodialysis withdrawal, and assess patterns of palliative care involvement before death among patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We designed an observational cohort study of adult patients on incident hemodialysis in a midwestern United States tertiary center, from January 2001 to November 2013, with death events through to November 2015. Logistic regression models evaluated associations between patient characteristics and withdrawal status and palliative care service utilization. Results Among 1226 patients, 536 died and 262 (49% of 536) withdrew. A random sample (10%; 52 out of 536) review of Death Notification Forms revealed 73% sensitivity for withdrawal. Risk factors for withdrawal before death included older age, white race, palliative care consultation within 6 months, hospitalization within 30 days, cerebrovascular disease, and no coronary artery disease. Most withdrawal decisions were made by patients (60%) or a family member (33%; surrogates). The majority withdrew either because of acute medical complications (51%) or failure to thrive/frailty (22%). After withdrawal, median time to death was 7 days (interquartile range, 4–11). In-hospital deaths were less common in the withdrawal group (34% versus 46% nonwithdrawal, P =0.003). A third (34%; 90 out of 262) of those that withdrew received palliative care services. Palliative care consultation in the withdrawal group was associated with longer hemodialysis duration (odds ratio, 1.19 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.3; P <0.001), hospitalization within 30 days of death (odds ratio, 5.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.62 to 12.73; P <0.001), and death in hospital (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 3.27; P =0.02). Conclusions In this single-center study, the rate of hemodialysis withdrawals were twice the frequency previously described. Acute medical complications and frailty appeared to be driving factors. However, palliative care services were used in only a minority of patients.

SummaryBackgroundHepatitis E virus (HEV) infection appears to be more common than previously thought. HEV seroprevalence in patients on maintenance haemodialysis (HD) is unclear with a range from 0% to 44%. In addition, risk factors of transmission of HEV in patients on haemodialysis are unknown.AimTo perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of HEV seroprevalence in HD patients compared with controls.MethodsA systematic search of several databases identified all observational studies with comparative arms. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. A random‐effects model was used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of positive anti‐HEV IgG in both groups. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed with appropriate tests.ResultsWe identified 31 studies from 17 countries between 1994 and 2016. Sixteen studies were judged to have adequate quality and 15 to have moderate limitations. HEV infection was more prevalent in patients on haemodialysis compared with controls (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.79‐3.40, I2 = 75.2%, P < .01). We conducted several subgroup analyses without difference in results. Egger regression test did not suggest publication bias (P = .83). Specific risk factors of HEV transmission in patients on haemodialysis were not clearly identified.ConclusionsHepatitis E virus infection is more prevalent in patients on haemodialysis compared with non‐haemodialysis control groups. Further studies are needed to determine risk factors of acquisition, impact on health, and risk for chronic HEV especially among those patients going to receive organ transplantation.