A pragmatic approach to risk assessment in pulmonary arterial hypertension using the 2015 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines
Elena Nardi,
Nazzareno Galiè,
Fabio Dardi,
Alessandra Manes,
Daniele Guarino,
Elisa Zuffa,
Alessandro De Lorenzis,
Ilenia Magnani,
Mariangela Rotunno,
Alberto Ballerini,
Gerardo Vito Lo Russo,
Massimiliano Palazzini
Affiliations
Elena Nardi
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Nazzareno Galiè
1Cardiology Unit, Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna
Fabio Dardi
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Alessandra Manes
Cardio-Thoracic-Vascular Department, IRCCS Sant’Orsola University Hospital, Bologna, Italy
Daniele Guarino
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Elisa Zuffa
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Alessandro De Lorenzis
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Ilenia Magnani
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Mariangela Rotunno
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Alberto Ballerini
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Gerardo Vito Lo Russo
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Massimiliano Palazzini
Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine - DIMES, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Objective To optimise treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), the 2015 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines recommend using risk stratification, with the aim of patients achieving low-risk status. Previous analyses of registries made progress in using risk stratification approaches, however, the focus is often on patients with a low-risk prognosis, whereas most PAH patients are in intermediate-risk or high-risk categories. Using only six parameters with high prognostic relevance, we aimed to demonstrate a pragmatic approach to individual patient risk assessment to discriminate between patients at low risk, intermediate risk and high risk of death.Methods Risk assessment was performed combining six parameters in four criteria: (1) WHO functional class, (2) 6 min walk distance, (3) N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)/BNP plasma levels or right atrial pressure and (4) cardiac index or mixed venous oxygen saturation. Assessments were made at baseline and at first follow-up after 3–4 months.Results 725 PAH treatment-naive patients were analysed. Survival estimates between risk groups were statistically significant at baseline and first follow-up (p<0.001), even when the analysis was performed within PAH etiological subgroups. Similar results were observed in 208 previously treated PAH patients. Furthermore, patients who remained at or improved to low risk had a significantly better estimated survival compared with patients who remained at or worsened to intermediate risk or high risk (p≤0.005).Conclusion The simplified risk-assessment method can discriminate idiopathic, connective-tissue-disease-associated and congenital-heart-disease-associated PAH patients into meaningful high-risk, intermediate-risk and low-risk groups at baseline and first follow-up. This pragmatic approach reinforces targeting a low-risk profile for PAH patients.