Assessment of Risk of Disease Progression in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights from an International Survey of Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines for the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) recommend regular multi-parametric assessment of a patient's risk of clinical worsening or death, with the goal of achieving/maintaining a low-risk status. This international survey investigated how physicians currently assess risk and compared their clinical gestalt (judgement of risk) with the risk calculated using an algorithm based on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) pulmonary hypertension guidelines and demonstrated to provide accurate mortality estimates. METHODS: PAH-treating physicians from Europe and the United States were surveyed on (1) how frequently they evaluated the recommended risk-assessment parameters and (2) to complete patient record forms (PRFs) with details on 5-7 recent adult PAH patients receiving treatment. For each PRF, physicians provided (1) their gestalt judgement of current risk and (2) details of the risk-assessment parameters measured. In accordance with the published method, measurements for ≥ 2 (of 6 selected) variables were required to calculate risk. Each variable was assigned a score of 1, 2 or 3 according to whether the measurement was within the thresholds for the low-, intermediate- or high-risk categories, as defined in the ESC/ERS guidelines. The average score represented the patient's calculated risk. RESULTS: In total, 90 physicians (52 cardiologists, 38 pulmonologists) completed the survey, providing a total of 623 PRFs; of these, 365 (59%) included ≥ 2 measurements required to calculate risk. Among these patients, the percentages assigned to low-, intermediate- and high-risk categories based on gestalt/calculation were 32%/15%, 45%/68% and 22%/17%, respectively. Overall, there was concordance between the gestalt and calculated risk category for 45% of patients. The greatest level of disparity was for patients judged to be at low risk, where 80% were assigned to higher risk categories based on their calculated risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey demonstrate that multi-parametric risk assessment is being performed in clinical practice, but not always to the extent recommended in the current guidelines. Further study on the utility of more regular measurement is required. FUNDING: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.