English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Contemporary risk assessment tools categorise patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as low, intermediate, or high-risk. A minority of patients achieve low-risk status with most remaining intermediate-risk. Our aim was to validate a 4-strata risk assessment approach categorising patients as low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high, or high risk, as proposed by the COMPERA Registry investigators.    Methods  We evaluated incident patients from the French PAH Registry and applied a 4-strata risk method at baseline and at first reassessment. We applied refined cut-points for 3 variables: World Health Organization functional class, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. We used Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess survival according to a 3-strata and 4-strata risk approach.    Results  At baseline (n=2879), the 4-strata approach identified 4 distinct risk groups and performed better than a 3-strata method for predicting mortality. The 4-strata model discrimination was higher than the 3-strata method when applied during follow-up and refined risk categories among subgroups with idiopathic PAH, connective tissue disease-associated PAH, congenital heart disease, and portopulmonary hypertension. Using the 4-strata approach, 53% of patients changed risk category from baseline compared to 39% of patients when applying the 3-strata approach. Those who achieved or maintained a low-risk status had the best survival, whereas there were more nuanced differences in survival for patients who were intermediate-low and intermediate-high.    Conclusions  The 4-strata risk assessment method refined risk prediction, especially within the intermediate risk category of patients, performed better at predicting survival and was more sensitive to change than the 3-strata approach.

External validation of a refined four-stratum risk assessment score from the French pulmonary hypertension registry