Hoeper, Marius M. and Pausch, Christine and Olsson, Karen M. and Huscher, Doerte and Pittrow, David and Gruenig, Ekkehard and Staehler, Gerd and Vizza, Carmine Dario and Gall, Henning and Distler, Oliver and Opitz, Christian and Gibbs, J. Simon R. and Delcroix, Marion and Ghofrani, H. Ardeschir and Park, Da-Hee and Ewert, Ralf and Kaemmerer, Harald and Kabitz, Hans-Joachim and Skowasch, Dirk and Behr, Juergen and Milger, Katrin and Halank, Michael and Wilkens, Heinrike and Seyfarth, Hans-Juergen and Held, Matthias and Dumitrescu, Daniel and Tsangaris, Iraklis and Vonk-Noordegraaf, Anton and Ulrich, Silvia and Klose, Hans and Claussen, Martin and Lange, Tobias J. and Rosenkranz, Stephan (2022) COMPERA 2.0: a refined four-stratum risk assessment model for pulmonary arterial hypertension. EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 60 (1): 2102311. ISSN 0903-1936, 1399-3003
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
Background Risk stratification plays an essential role in the management of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The current European guidelines propose a three-stratum model to categorise risk as low, intermediate or high, based on the expected 1-year mortality. However, with this model, most patients are categorised as intermediate risk. We investigated a modified approach based on four risk categories, with intermediate risk subdivided into intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk. Methods We analysed data from the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA), a European pulmonary hypertension registry, and calculated risk at diagnosis and first follow-up based on World Health Organization functional class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and serum levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), using refined cut-off values. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses, log-rank testing and Cox proportional hazards models. Results Data from 1655 patients with PAH were analysed. Using the three-stratum model, most patients were classified as intermediate risk (76.0% at baseline and 63.9% at first follow-up). The refined four -stratum risk model yielded a more nuanced separation and predicted long-term survival, especially at follow-up assessment. Changes in risk from baseline to follow-up were observed in 31.1% of the patients with the three-stratum model and in 49.2% with the four-stratum model. These changes, including those between the intermediate-low and intermediate-high strata, were associated with changes in long-term mortality risk. Conclusions Modified risk stratification using a four-stratum model based on refined cut-off levels for functional class, 6MWD and BNP/NT-proBNP was more sensitive to prognostically relevant changes in risk than the original three-stratum model.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | SCORE CALCULATOR; SURVIVAL; REGISTRY; |
| Subjects: | 600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine |
| Divisions: | Medicine > Lehrstuhl für Innere Medizin II |
| Depositing User: | Dr. Gernot Deinzer |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Dec 2023 10:45 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Dec 2023 10:45 |
| URI: | https://pred.uni-regensburg.de/id/eprint/58794 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
