4.7 Article

Prevalence of pulmonary hypertension in an unselected, mixed connective tissue disease cohort: results of a nationwide, Norwegian cross-sectional multicentre study and review of current literature

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 1208-1213

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes430

关键词

mixed connective tissue disease; connective tissue diseases; pulmonary hypertension; heart catheterization; echocardiography; prevalence; review

资金

  1. Norwegian Rheumatism Association
  2. Scandinavian Rheumatology Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The aim of this study was to assess the overall prevalence of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in an unselected MCTD cohort and review the current knowledge with a systematic database search. Methods. A nationwide multicentre cohort of 147 adult MCTD patients were initially screened for PH by echocardiography, high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), pulmonary function tests and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and then followed up for a mean of 5.6 years. Right-sided heart catheterization was performed when estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure was > 40 mmHg on echocardiography. PH was diagnosed according to the 2009 European Society of Cardiology and European Respiratory Society guidelines. Results. At inclusion, 2.0% (3/147) had established PH. Two additional PH patients were identified during follow-up, giving a total PH frequency in the cohort of 3.4% (5/147). All five had elevated serum NT-proBNP. Two had isolated pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and three PH associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). Three PH patients died during follow-up. Nine other patients in the cohort also died, but none of them had echocardiographic signs of PH prior to death. Conclusion. The data from the current unselected MCTD cohort suggest that the prevalence of PH is much lower than expected from previous studies but confirm the seriousness of the disease complication.

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