4.6 Article

Haemodynamics and serial risk assessment in systemic sclerosis associated pulmonary arterial hypertension

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00678-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-15-RHUS-0002]
  2. European Respiratory Society/Canadian Thoracic Society Long-Term Research Fellowship [LTRF 2015-4780]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognostic importance of follow-up haemodynamics and the validity of multidimensional risk assessment are not well established for systemic sclerosis (SSc)-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). We assessed incident SSc-PAH patients to determine the association between clinical and haemodynamic variables at baseline and first follow-up right heart catheterisation (RHC) with transplant-free survival. RHC variables included cardiac index, stroke volume index (SVI), pulmonary arterial compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance. Risk assessment was performed according to the number of low-risk criteria: functional class I or II, 6-min walking distance (6MWD) >440 m, right atrial pressure <8 mmHg and cardiac index >= 2.5 L.min(-1).m(-2). Transplant-free survival from diagnosis (n=513) was 87%, 55% and 35% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. At baseline, 6MWD was the only independent predictor. A follow-up RHC was available for 353 patients (median interval 4.6 months, interquartile range 3.9-6.4 months). The 6MWD, functional class, cardiac index, SVI, pulmonary arterial compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance were independently associated with transplant-free survival at follow-up, with SVI performing better than other haemodynamic variables. 1-year outcomes were better with increasing number of low-risk criteria at baseline (area under the curve (AUC) 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.69) and at first follow-up (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). Follow-up haemodynamics and multidimensional risk assessment had greater prognostic significance than at baseline in SSc-PAH.

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

4.6
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