Full Papers
Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis in the era of new pulmonary arterial hypertension definitions
M. Erdogan1, B. Kilickiran Avci2, C. Ebren3, Y. Ersoy4, Z. Ongen5, G. Ongen6, V. Hamuryudan7, G. Hatemi8
- 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. burcakdr@yahoo.com
- Department of Cardiology, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Department of Cardiology, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Department of Chest Diseases, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey.
CER17054
Full Papers
Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)
PMID: 38489342 [PubMed]
Received: 10/08/2023
Accepted : 18/01/2024
In Press: 15/03/2024
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.
