Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Epidemiological assessment reveals risk factors affecting survival rates in schistosomiasis patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Schistosomiasis-associated PAH (Sch-PAH) falls under group I pulmonary hypertension and it affects 230 million people, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. This significant burden has prompted studies on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of Sch-PAH to improve awareness and management, particularly in developing regions. This study investigates the characteristics of Sch-PAH, including demographics, clinical and hemodynamic features, and survival outcomes compared to idiopathic Pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), while evaluating the prognosis and current clinical practices. A cohort of 83 patients, including 41 with Sch-PAH and 42 with IPAH, were studied retrospectively over five years (2019–2024) from 3 pulmonary hypertension centres in Egypt. Data collection focused on demographic details, comorbidities, echocardiographic findings, and survival rates. Sch-PAH patients were significantly older (50.4 ± 12 years) and predominantly male ( P < 0.001) compared to IPAH patients (34.5 ± 9.7 years). Higher comorbidity rates, chiefly chest and hepatic disorders, were observed in Sch-PAH. The Sch-PAH group exhibited more WHO functional class IV cases and greater left atrium (LA) and pulmonary artery (PA) dilation ( P = 0.007, P = 0.006, P = 0.01, respectively). Lower ejection fraction (EF%) and absence of PA dilation and portal hypertension were linked to improved survival, with EF% emerging as an independent survival predictor (OR = 0.72 and 0.55; P = 0.002 and < 0.001). The EF% cutoff below 66% showed high predictive accuracy for survival (AUC = 0.85, P = 0.008). Sch-PAH affects primarily older males with significant comorbidities. Its prevalence poses a public health challenge, making the identification of mortality predictors crucial for early patient risk assessment and improved prognosis management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soliman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: