CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Stenting Left Main

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Main Revascularization in 2017 Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Differences between the left main and other bifurcations Meta-Analysis of Comparison of 5-Year Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery in the Era of Drug-eluting Stents Two-year outcomes of everolimus vs. paclitaxel-eluting stent for the treatment of unprotected left main lesions: a propensity score matching comparison of patients included in the French Left Main Taxus (FLM Taxus) and the LEft MAin Xience (LEMAX) registries Ten-Year All-Cause Death According to Completeness of Revascularization in Patients With Three-Vessel Disease or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the SYNTAX Extended Survival Study Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial Usefulness of the SYNTAX score II to validate 2-year outcomes in patients with complex coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large single-center study

Original Research2018 May 3;51(5).

JOURNAL:Eur Respir J. Article Link

Impact of age and comorbidity on risk stratification in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension

Hjalmarsson C, Rådegran G, Kylhammar D et al. Keywords: IPAH; prevalence; age; comorbidity; risk stratification

ABSTRACT


Recent reports from worldwide pulmonary hypertension registries show a new demographic picture for patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), with an increasing prevalence among the elderly. We aimed to investigate the effects of age and comorbidity on risk stratification and outcome of patients with incident IPAH. The study population (n=264) was categorised into four age groups: 18-45, 46-64, 65-74 and ≥75 years. Individual risk profiles were determined according to a risk assessment instrument, based on the European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society guidelines. The change in risk group from baseline to follow-up (median 5 months) and survival were compared across age groups. In the two youngest age groups, a significant number of patients improved (18-45 years, Z= -4.613, p<0.001; 46-64 years, Z= -2.125, p=0.034), but no significant improvement was found in the older patient groups. 5-year survival was highest in patients aged 18-45 years (88%), while the survival rates were 63%, 56% and 36% for patients in the groups 46-64, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively (p<0.001). Ischaemic heart disease and kidney dysfunction independently predicted survival. These findings highlight the importance of age and specific comorbidities as prognostic markers of outcome in addition to established risk assessment algorithms.