4.7 Review

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Epidemiology and Registries

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.023

关键词

databases; epidemiology; pulmonary hypertension; registries

资金

  1. Medtronic
  2. Gilead
  3. Bayer Schering Pharma
  4. Actelion
  5. Bayer
  6. Pfizer
  7. GlaxoSmithKline
  8. Lilly
  9. United Therapeutics
  10. Acetelion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Registries of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have been instrumental in characterizing the presentation and natural history of the disease and provide a basis for prognostication. Since the initial accumulation of data conducted in the 1980s, subsequent registry databases have yielded information about the demographic factors, treatment, and survival of patients and have permitted comparisons between populations in different eras and environments. Inclusion of patients with all subtypes of PAH has also allowed comparisons of these subpopulations. We describe herein the basic methodology by which PAH registries have been conducted, review key insights provided by registries, summarize issues related to interpretation and comparison of the results, and discuss the utility of data to predict survival outcomes. Potential sources of bias, particularly related to the inclusion of incident and/or prevalent patients and missing data, are addressed. A fundamental observation of current registries is that survival in the modern treatment era has improved compared with that observed previously and that outcomes among PAH subpopulations vary substantially. Continuing systematic clinical surveillance of PAH will be important as treatment evolves and as understanding of mechanisms advance. Considerations for future directions of registry studies include enrollment of a broader population of patients with pulmonary hypertension of all clinical types and severity and continued globalization and collaboration of registry databases. (C) 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据