Suppr超能文献

在新肺动脉高压定义时代对系统性硬皮病患者进行肺动脉高压筛查。

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

机构信息

Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.

Department of Cardiology, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2024 Aug;42(8):1590-1597. doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/gzo4r2. Epub 2024 Mar 15.

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.

摘要

目的

本研究根据 2015 年 ESC/ERS 指南和最近的 2022 ESC/ERS 指南血流动力学标准,比较三种复合肺动脉高压(PAH)筛查工具在真实 SSc 队列中的表现。

方法

对未诊断为肺动脉高压(PH)的连续 SSc 患者进行欧洲心脏病学会/欧洲呼吸学会(ESC/ERS)、DETECT 和澳大利亚硬皮病兴趣小组(ASIG)算法的 PAH 筛查。根据 2022 ESC/ERS PAH 标准,比较右心导管检查(RHC)对 PAH 的转诊表现。

结果

81 例患者中有 35 例需要 RHC;根据 ESC/ERS,15 例(18.5%)需要 RHC,27 例(33.3%)根据 DETECT,25 例(31%)根据 ASIG。最终诊断为 17 例无 PH,8 例 WHO 组 1 PH(PAH),8 例 WHO 组 2 PH,2 例 WHO 组 3 PH。当应用之前 ESC/ERS 指南的血流动力学标准时,只有 1 例患者被诊断为 PAH。根据 2022 ESC/ERS 指南的定义,算法对 PAH 的诊断敏感性分别为 ESC/ERS 为 62.5%,DETECT 为 75%,ASIG 为 87.5%,所有标准均为 100%。

结论

根据最近的标准,SSc 患者的 PAH 诊断增加了 1.8 倍。目前用于筛查 PAH 的算法对这些修订标准的敏感性较低。尽管 ASIG 算法似乎更敏感,但它仍然可能遗漏诊断。多模式/算法方法似乎是预测 PAH 的最佳选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验