• Sandeep Sahay, Villasmil HernandezNelsonNDepartment of Medicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX., Fredrick Wang, Matthew Wooten, Duc T Nguyen, Charles Fauvel, Raymond Benza, and Edward A Graviss.
• Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. Electronic address: ssahay@houstonmethodist.org.
• Chest. 2024 Aug 1; 166 (2): 373387373-387.

BackgroundRisk stratification is the cornerstone of the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Current European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines recommend using the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) three-strata risk model at baseline and the COMPERA 2.0 four-strata model at follow-up. However, the guidelines did not take into consideration other available risk scores such as the Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Disease Management (REVEAL) Lite 2.Research QuestionIs REVEAL Lite 2 better at discriminating risk than the COMPERA risk assessment models at baseline or follow-up evaluations?Study Design And MethodsThis study analyzed data from patients with PAH consecutively enrolled between June 2011 and February 2022 in the PAH registry at our expert Pulmonary Hypertension Center. Patients were stratified according to REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA three- and four-strata risk scores at baseline and follow-up to predict the composite outcome for lung transplantation or death. Receiver-operating characteristic curves in predicting the binary outcome at 3, 5, and 7 years were plotted. Areas under the curve of the scores were compared by using the χ2 test. The performance of the scores was determined according to the Harrel C statistic.ResultsA total of 296 patients were included for baseline and 196 for follow-up evaluation. The overall transplant-free survival in the patient population at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years was 93.6%, 81.3%, 75.1%, and 68.8%, respectively. At baseline, the C statistic of REVEAL Lite 2 was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.80), compared with 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) for the COMPERA four-strata model and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.58-0.69) for the COMPERA three-strata model. All C statistic differences between REVEAL Lite 2 and the other models were statistically significant at baseline.InterpretationOur analysis showed that REVEAL Lite 2 was better at baseline at discriminating risk in this patient population. Future guidelines should consider including REVEAL Lite 2 in the management algorithm to help clinicians make informed decisions. Further analysis in larger cohorts could help validate these findings.Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27 keywords...

hide…