风险评估工具对WHO功能II级肺动脉高压患者的预后价值:早期试验的事后分析

N. Kim, Cass, R. Lickert, J. Pruett, Carol Zhao, W. Drake
{"title":"风险评估工具对WHO功能II级肺动脉高压患者的预后价值:早期试验的事后分析","authors":"N. Kim, Cass, R. Lickert, J. Pruett, Carol Zhao, W. Drake","doi":"10.35248/2167-0870.10.7.443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Current practice guidelines for patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) recommend a multidimensional risk assessment, but World Health Organization (WHO) Functional Class (FC) remains a main criterion for treatment decisions. Objectives: A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine if different risk assessment tools evaluated in PAH registry populations can identify patients in WHO FC II at higher risk of death. Methods: Patients in the randomized, controlled EARLY trial (NCT00091715; N=185), which exclusively enrolled patients in FC II, were stratified into three categories—low-, intermediate-, and high-risk—using the original REVEAL risk calculator, revised REVEAL risk calculator 2.0, COMPERA categorical score, and two FPHN methods (invasive and non-invasive) counting low-risk criteria. Risk of all-cause death was compared between baseline categories. Associations between change in risk category from baseline to month 6 (improved, worsened, or stable) and PAH worsening or death were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for baseline risk category. Results: Patients classified as intermediate or high risk ranged from 35% using the original REVEAL risk calculator to 89% by the COMPERA method at baseline, and from 37% to 82%, respectively, at month 6. Higher risk category was associated with increased mortality risk. Rates of subsequent PAH worsening and death were higher in patients with worsened risk category and lower in those with improved risk category. Conclusion: Multiparametric assessment has additional prognostic value over FC alone, but different risk assessment tools vary in risk stratification. PAH patients in WHO FC II are not all at low risk, so should be assessed frequently.","PeriodicalId":15375,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical trials","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic Value of Risk Assessment Tools for Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in WHO Functional Class II: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EARLY Trial\",\"authors\":\"N. Kim, Cass, R. Lickert, J. Pruett, Carol Zhao, W. Drake\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2167-0870.10.7.443\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Current practice guidelines for patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) recommend a multidimensional risk assessment, but World Health Organization (WHO) Functional Class (FC) remains a main criterion for treatment decisions. Objectives: A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine if different risk assessment tools evaluated in PAH registry populations can identify patients in WHO FC II at higher risk of death. Methods: Patients in the randomized, controlled EARLY trial (NCT00091715; N=185), which exclusively enrolled patients in FC II, were stratified into three categories—low-, intermediate-, and high-risk—using the original REVEAL risk calculator, revised REVEAL risk calculator 2.0, COMPERA categorical score, and two FPHN methods (invasive and non-invasive) counting low-risk criteria. Risk of all-cause death was compared between baseline categories. Associations between change in risk category from baseline to month 6 (improved, worsened, or stable) and PAH worsening or death were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for baseline risk category. Results: Patients classified as intermediate or high risk ranged from 35% using the original REVEAL risk calculator to 89% by the COMPERA method at baseline, and from 37% to 82%, respectively, at month 6. Higher risk category was associated with increased mortality risk. Rates of subsequent PAH worsening and death were higher in patients with worsened risk category and lower in those with improved risk category. Conclusion: Multiparametric assessment has additional prognostic value over FC alone, but different risk assessment tools vary in risk stratification. PAH patients in WHO FC II are not all at low risk, so should be assessed frequently.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2167-0870.10.7.443\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2167-0870.10.7.443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前肺动脉高压(PAH)患者的实践指南建议进行多维风险评估,但世界卫生组织(WHO)功能分类(FC)仍然是治疗决策的主要标准。目的:进行一项事后分析,以确定在PAH登记人群中评估的不同风险评估工具是否可以识别WHO FC II中死亡风险较高的患者。方法:随机对照EARLY试验(NCT00091715;N=185),仅纳入FC II患者,使用原始的REVEAL风险计算器,修订的REVEAL风险计算器2.0,COMPERA分类评分和两种FPHN方法(侵入性和非侵入性)计数低风险标准,将其分为低、中、高风险三类。在基线分类之间比较全因死亡风险。从基线到第6个月的风险类别变化(改善、恶化或稳定)与PAH恶化或死亡之间的关系使用Cox比例风险模型进行估计,调整基线风险类别。结果:在第6个月时,使用原始REVEAL风险计算器分类为中度或高风险的患者从35%到基线时的COMPERA方法的89%,分别从37%到82%。高风险类别与死亡风险增加相关。随后的PAH恶化率和死亡率在风险加重的患者中较高,而在风险改善的患者中较低。结论:多参数评估比单独的FC有额外的预后价值,但不同的风险评估工具在风险分层上有所不同。WHO FC II的PAH患者并非都处于低风险,因此应经常进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prognostic Value of Risk Assessment Tools for Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in WHO Functional Class II: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EARLY Trial
Background: Current practice guidelines for patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) recommend a multidimensional risk assessment, but World Health Organization (WHO) Functional Class (FC) remains a main criterion for treatment decisions. Objectives: A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine if different risk assessment tools evaluated in PAH registry populations can identify patients in WHO FC II at higher risk of death. Methods: Patients in the randomized, controlled EARLY trial (NCT00091715; N=185), which exclusively enrolled patients in FC II, were stratified into three categories—low-, intermediate-, and high-risk—using the original REVEAL risk calculator, revised REVEAL risk calculator 2.0, COMPERA categorical score, and two FPHN methods (invasive and non-invasive) counting low-risk criteria. Risk of all-cause death was compared between baseline categories. Associations between change in risk category from baseline to month 6 (improved, worsened, or stable) and PAH worsening or death were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for baseline risk category. Results: Patients classified as intermediate or high risk ranged from 35% using the original REVEAL risk calculator to 89% by the COMPERA method at baseline, and from 37% to 82%, respectively, at month 6. Higher risk category was associated with increased mortality risk. Rates of subsequent PAH worsening and death were higher in patients with worsened risk category and lower in those with improved risk category. Conclusion: Multiparametric assessment has additional prognostic value over FC alone, but different risk assessment tools vary in risk stratification. PAH patients in WHO FC II are not all at low risk, so should be assessed frequently.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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