In a Saudi cohort of PAH patients managed primarily with nonparenteral therapies, mortality remains high (1- and 3-year survival of 72% and 57%), largely driven by advanced disease at presentation and specific high-risk subtypes.
High mortality persists in this Saudi PAH cohort; leaves open the need for earlier detection and subtype-specific strategies in similar populations.
AIMS: The purpose of this study is to present our center's experience in managing patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The main objective is to describe patients' management profile and treatment outcome. METHODS: This study presents the results from a single pulmonary hypertension (PH) specialized center in Saudi Arabia. Both incidence and prevalence cases are included. We have previously reported the clinical and physiological characteristics at the time of diagnosis for this cohort of patients. In this study, we describe the clinical management and the outcome of therapy in the same cohort, who were prospectively followed for a mean of 22 months. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were identified as having PAH. At the time of enrollment, 56.1% of patients were in modified New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA FC) III and 16.8% were in IV. Phosphdiesterase-5 inhibitor was the most commonly used target therapy (82.2%) followed by endothelin receptors antagonist (74.4%). Only five patients (4.7%) were candidate to use calcium channel blockers. Seventy-nine patients (73.8 %) received a combination nonparenteral target therapy. Thirty-one patients (28.9%) died during the follow-up period. Modified NYHA FC III and IV patients, portopulmonary hypertension, heritable PAH, and PAH associated with connective tissue diseases had the highest mortality rate (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our patients are detected at advanced stage of the disease, and thus the mortality is still unacceptably high. Advanced functional class at presentation and certain disease subgroups are associated with increased mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Idrees et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: