Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorYaylali, Yalin Tolga
dc.contributor.authorBasarici, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorAvci, Burcak Kilickiran
dc.contributor.authorMeric, Murat
dc.contributor.authorSinan, Umit Yasar
dc.contributor.authorSenol, Hande
dc.contributor.authorOngen, Zeki
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T12:26:44Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T12:26:44Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn2149-2263
dc.identifier.issn2149-2271
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.53498
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/10806
dc.descriptionBasarici, Ibrahim/0000-0003-4435-337X; Sinan, Umit Yasar/0000-0002-4837-7099en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000472752500007en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 31142721en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Risk stratification continues to evolve in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Our aim was to further confirm the risk assessment strategy in our cohort and to determine the most reliable model. Methods: We enrolled incident patients with idiopathic PAH (IPAH), heritable, drug-induced, congenital heart disease (CHD), connective tissue diseases (CTD) subsets, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) from January 2008 to February 2018. Data from the baseline and subsequent follow-ups within 1 year of diagnosis were included. An abbreviated risk assessment strategy was applied using the following variables: functional class (FC), 6-minute walk distance (6 MWD), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or BNP, right atrial (RA) area, pericardial effusion, the mean RA pressure, cardiac index, and mixed venous oxygen saturation. Three different methods were applied to categorize patients. Results: A total of 189 subjects (46 +/- 17 years, 23% male) were included. Sixty-one patients had died. The survival differed significantly between the risk groups both at diagnosis and during the follow-up. Patients with a low-risk profile had a better survival rate. An abbreviated risk assessment tool predicted mortality at early follow-up in the entire group and CHD, CTD subsets, and CTEPH, separately. An overall mortality among risk categories was significantly different according to each categorization method. The most reliable model comprised FC, 6 MWD, NT pro-BNP/BNP, and the RA area at the follow-up. Conclusion: The abbreviated risk assessment tool may be valid for the PAH subsets and CTEPH. Echocardiographic variables do matter. A model comprising FC, 6 MWD, NT pro-BNP/BNP, and the RA area at the follow-up could be useful for better prognostication.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTurkish Soc Cardiologyen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2019.53498en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectchronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionen_US
dc.subjectpulmonary arterial hypertensionen_US
dc.subjectpulmonary arterial hypertension subsetsen_US
dc.subjectrisk assessmenten_US
dc.subjectsurvivalen_US
dc.titleRisk assessment and survival of patients with pulmonary hypertension: Multicenter experience in Turkeyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume21en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.startpage322en_US
dc.identifier.endpage330en_US
dc.relation.journalAnatolian Journal of Cardiologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster