['This study was designed to determine the relevance of a proposed classification for advanced heart failure (HF). Profiles based on clinical assessment of congestion and perfusion at the time of hospitalization were compared with subsequent outcomes.', 'Optimal design of therapy and trials for advanced HF remains limited by the lack of simple clinical profiles to characterize patients.', "Prospective analysis was performed for 452 patients admitted to the cardiomyopathy service at the Brigham and Women's Hospital with a diagnosis of HF. Patients were classified by clinical assessment into four profiles: profile A, patients with no evidence of congestion or hypoperfusion (dry-warm, n = 123); profile B, congestion with adequate perfusion (wet-warm, n = 222); profile C, congestion and hypoperfusion (wet-cold, n = 91); and profile L, hypoperfusion without congestion (dry-cold, n = 16). Other standard predictors of outcome were included and patients were followed for the end points of death (n = 117) and death or urgent transplantation (n = 137) at one year.", 'Survival analysis showed that clinical profiles predict outcomes in HF. Profiles B and C increase the risk of death plus urgent transplantation by univariate (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83, p = 0.02) and multivariate analyses (HR 2.48, p = 0.003). Moreover, clinical profiles add prognostic information even when limited to patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV symptoms (profile B: HR 2.23, p = 0.026; profile C: HR 2.73, p = 0.009).'] Does clinical assessment identify hemodynamic profiles that predict outcomes in patients admitted with heart failure?