Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis in the era of new pulmonary arterial hypertension definitions.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Mustafa Erdogan, Burcak Kilickiran Avci, Cansu Ebren, Yagmur Ersoy, Zeki Ongen, Gul Ongen, Vedat Hamuryudan, Gulen Hatemi
{"title":"Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis in the era of new pulmonary arterial hypertension definitions.","authors":"Mustafa Erdogan, Burcak Kilickiran Avci, Cansu Ebren, Yagmur Ersoy, Zeki Ongen, Gul Ongen, Vedat Hamuryudan, Gulen Hatemi","doi":"10.55563/clinexprheumatol/gzo4r2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study compares the performance of three composite pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) screening tools in a real-life SSc cohort, according to both the previous 2015 ESC/ERS guideline and the recent 2022 ESC/ERS guideline haemodynamic criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive SSc patients without a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH) were screened for PAH using the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS), DETECT, and Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG) algorithms. Right heart catheterisation (RHC) referral performances for PAH were compared according to the 2022 ESC/ERS PAH criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five of the 81 patients required RHC; 15 (18.5%) according to ESC/ERS, 27 (33.3%) according to DETECT, and 25 (31%) according to ASIG. The final diagnoses were no-PH in 17 patients, WHO group 1 PH (PAH) in 8 patients, WHO group 2 PH in 8 patients, and WHO group 3 PH in 2 patients. When the hemodynamic criteria of the previous ESC/ERS guideline were applied, only one patient was diagnosed with PAH. The sensitivities of the algorithms for the diagnosis of PAH were 62.5% for ESC/ERS, 75% for DETECT, 87.5% for ASIG according to the 2022 ESC/ERS guideline definition, and 100% for all according to the previous ESC/ERS guideline.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With the recent criteria, PAH diagnosis in patients with SSc increased by 1.8-fold. Current algorithms for screening PAH are less sensitive with these revised criteria. Although the ASIG algorithm seems more sensitive, it can still miss the diagnosis. The multimodal/algorithmic approach seems to be the best option for predicting PAH.</p>","PeriodicalId":10274,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and experimental rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and experimental rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55563/clinexprheumatol/gzo4r2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study compares the performance of three composite pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) screening tools in a real-life SSc cohort, according to both the previous 2015 ESC/ERS guideline and the recent 2022 ESC/ERS guideline haemodynamic criteria.

Methods: Consecutive SSc patients without a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH) were screened for PAH using the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS), DETECT, and Australian Scleroderma Interest Group (ASIG) algorithms. Right heart catheterisation (RHC) referral performances for PAH were compared according to the 2022 ESC/ERS PAH criteria.

Results: Thirty-five of the 81 patients required RHC; 15 (18.5%) according to ESC/ERS, 27 (33.3%) according to DETECT, and 25 (31%) according to ASIG. The final diagnoses were no-PH in 17 patients, WHO group 1 PH (PAH) in 8 patients, WHO group 2 PH in 8 patients, and WHO group 3 PH in 2 patients. When the hemodynamic criteria of the previous ESC/ERS guideline were applied, only one patient was diagnosed with PAH. The sensitivities of the algorithms for the diagnosis of PAH were 62.5% for ESC/ERS, 75% for DETECT, 87.5% for ASIG according to the 2022 ESC/ERS guideline definition, and 100% for all according to the previous ESC/ERS guideline.

Conclusions: With the recent criteria, PAH diagnosis in patients with SSc increased by 1.8-fold. Current algorithms for screening PAH are less sensitive with these revised criteria. Although the ASIG algorithm seems more sensitive, it can still miss the diagnosis. The multimodal/algorithmic approach seems to be the best option for predicting PAH.

在新的肺动脉高压定义时代筛查系统性硬化症患者的肺动脉高压。
研究目的本研究根据之前的2015年ESC/ERS指南和最近的2022年ESC/ERS指南血流动力学标准,比较了三种复合肺动脉高压(PAH)筛查工具在现实生活中的SSc队列中的表现:采用欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲呼吸学会(ESC/ERS)、DETECT 和澳大利亚硬皮病兴趣小组(ASIG)的算法,对既往未确诊肺动脉高压(PH)的连续 SSc 患者进行 PAH 筛查。根据2022年ESC/ERS PAH标准比较了PAH的右心导管检查(RHC)转诊率:81例患者中有35例需要做右心导管检查;其中15例(18.5%)根据ESC/ERS标准,27例(33.3%)根据DETECT标准,25例(31%)根据ASIG标准。最终诊断为无 PH 的患者有 17 人,WHO 1 类 PH(PAH)的患者有 8 人,WHO 2 类 PH 的患者有 8 人,WHO 3 类 PH 的患者有 2 人。当采用之前的 ESC/ERS 指南的血液动力学标准时,只有一名患者被诊断为 PAH。根据 2022 年 ESC/ERS 指南的定义,ESC/ERS、DETECT 和 ASIG 对 PAH 诊断算法的灵敏度分别为 62.5%、75% 和 87.5%,而根据之前的 ESC/ERS 指南,所有算法的灵敏度均为 100%:结论:根据最新标准,SSc 患者的 PAH 诊断率增加了 1.8 倍。目前筛查 PAH 的算法对这些修订标准的敏感性较低。虽然 ASIG 算法似乎更敏感,但仍有可能漏诊。多模态/算法方法似乎是预测 PAH 的最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
18.90%
发文量
377
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology is a bi-monthly international peer-reviewed journal which has been covering all clinical, experimental and translational aspects of musculoskeletal, arthritic and connective tissue diseases since 1983.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信