4.5 Article

Prediction of pulmonary hypertension in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 101, Issue 10, Pages 2153-2159

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2007.05.012

Keywords

pressure; pulmonary artery; hypertension; pulmonary; pulmonary fibrosis; oximetry

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U10 HL080411-03, R01 HL080206, U10 HL080411, HL080206, 5U10HL080411, 5P50HL67665, HL086491, P50 HL067665] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Reliable, noninvasive approaches to the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis are needed. We tested the hypothesis that the forced vital capacity to diffusing capacity ratio and room air resting pulse oximetry may be combined to predict mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Methods: Sixty-one idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients with available right-heart catheterization were studied. We regressed measured MPAP as a continuous variable on pulse oximetry (SpO(2)) and percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) to percent-predicted diffusing capacity ratio (% FVC/% DLCO) in a multivariable linear regression model. Results: Linear regression generated the following equation: MPAP = -11.9+0.272 x SPO2+0.0659 x (100-SPO2)(2)+3.06 x (% FVC/% DLCO); adjusted R-2 = 0.55, p < 0.0001. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive value of model-predicted pulmonary hypertension were 71% (95% confidence interval (Cl): 50-89%), 81% (95% CI: 68-92%), 71% (95% CI: 51-87%) and 81% (95% CI: 68-94%). Conclusions: A pulmonary hypertension predictor based on room air resting pulse oximetry and FVC to diffusing capacity ratio has a relatively high negative predictive value. However, this model will require external validation before it can be used in clinical practice. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available