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


Creative Commons License

ERDOĞAN M., Kilickiran Avci B., Ebren C., Ersoy Y., Ongen Z., Ongen G., ...Daha Fazla

Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, cilt.42, sa.8, ss.1590-1597, 2024 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 42 Sayı: 8
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Doi Numarası: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/gzo4r2
  • Dergi Adı: Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1590-1597
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: diagnostic criteria, pulmonary, scleroderma, systemic sclerosis
  • Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
  • İstanbul Üniversitesi-Cerrahpaşa Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective 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 haemodynamic 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. Conclusion 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.