Outcomes and risk assessment in pulmonary veno-occlusive disease.

Introduction: Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD) is a rare and severe subtype of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Although European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines advise assessing PAH severity at baseline and during follow-up, no existing risk assessment methods have been validated for PVOD. This study aimed to identify prognostic factors, examine the impact of treatment strategies and evaluate risk assessment methods for PVOD patients. Methods: The study analysed all incident PVOD patients included in the French Pulmonary Hypertension Registry between 2006 and 2021. Survival was assessed based on initial treatment strategy and risk status and compared to a matched (age, sex, pulmonary vascular resistance) PAH group. Six risk assessment methods (number of four low-risk and three noninvasive low-risk variables, ESC/ERS guidelines three-strata and four-strata models, REVEAL 2.0 and Lite 2) were applied at baseline and early follow-up, and their accuracy was compared using Harrell's c-statistic. Results: Among the 327 included PVOD patients, survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 86%, 50% and 27%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that only 6-min walk distance was associated with survival, with no significant difference based on initial treatment strategy. All six risk assessment methods could discriminate mortality risk, and the ESC/ERS four-strata model was the most accurate at both baseline and follow-up (C-index 0.64 and 0.74). PVOD survival rates were consistently lower than PAH when comparing baseline risk status using the ESC/ERS four-strata model. Conclusion: PVOD is associated with poor outcomes, and initial treatment strategies do not significantly affect survival. Risk assessment methods can be useful in predicting survival for PVOD patients.

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

INTRODUCTION: 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 four-stratum risk assessment approach categorising patients as low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high or high risk, as proposed by the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) investigators. METHODS: We evaluated incident patients from the French PAH Registry and applied a four-stratum risk method at baseline and at first reassessment. We applied refined cut-points for three variables: World Health Organization functional class, 6-min 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 three-stratum and four-stratum risk approaches. RESULTS: At baseline (n=2879), the four-stratum approach identified four distinct risk groups and performed slightly better than a three-stratum method for predicting mortality. Four-stratum model discrimination was significantly higher than the three-stratum 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 four-stratum approach, 53% of patients changed risk category from baseline compared to 39% of patients when applying the three-stratum 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 risk. CONCLUSIONS: The four-stratum 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 three-stratum approach.