Lack of concordance between the different exercise test measures used in the risk stratification of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension

4Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients it is essential to perform a prognostic assessment to optimize the treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk stratification concordance assessed with different exercise test variables in a cohort of PAH patients. A retrospective analysis was performed using patient data registered in the PAH unit. Only those patients in whom the mean time elapsed between the 6-min walking test (6MWT) and the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) was a maximum of 6 months were selected. A total of 140 records from 40 patients were finally analyzed. When it came to assessing the concordance between the two exercise tests in the guidelines (CPET and 6MWT), up to 84.3% of the records did not coincide in terms of the risk stratification. Exclusively considering the CPET parameters, most of the records (75%) failed to include all three variables in the same risk category. When analyzing the VO2 alone, up to 40.7% of the tests yielded different risk classifications depending on whether the parameter was expressed. In conclusion, there is a low concordance between the two proposed exercise tests. These results should be a call for reflection on whether the cut-off points set for the exercise tests proposed for the current risk stratification are adequate to achieve a correct risk stratification or whether they require an appropriate revision.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mora Cuesta, V. M., Martínez Meñaca, A., Iturbe Fernández, D., Tello Mena, S., Alonso Lecue, P., Fernández Márquez, D., … Cifrián Martínez, J. M. (2022). Lack of concordance between the different exercise test measures used in the risk stratification of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulmonary Circulation, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/pul2.12149

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free