Comparison Between REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA 2.0 for Risk Stratification in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
- PMID: 38447640
- DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.02.052
Comparison Between REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA 2.0 for Risk Stratification in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Abstract
Background: Risk stratification is the cornerstone of the management of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Current European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines recommend using the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) three-strata risk model at baseline and the COMPERA 2.0 four-strata model at follow-up. However, the guidelines did not take into consideration other available risk scores such as the Registry to Evaluate Early and Long-Term PAH Disease Management (REVEAL) Lite 2.
Research question: Is REVEAL Lite 2 better at discriminating risk than the COMPERA risk assessment models at baseline or follow-up evaluations?
Study design and methods: This study analyzed data from patients with PAH consecutively enrolled between June 2011 and February 2022 in the PAH registry at our expert Pulmonary Hypertension Center. Patients were stratified according to REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA three- and four-strata risk scores at baseline and follow-up to predict the composite outcome for lung transplantation or death. Receiver-operating characteristic curves in predicting the binary outcome at 3, 5, and 7 years were plotted. Areas under the curve of the scores were compared by using the χ2 test. The performance of the scores was determined according to the Harrel C statistic.
Results: A total of 296 patients were included for baseline and 196 for follow-up evaluation. The overall transplant-free survival in the patient population at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years was 93.6%, 81.3%, 75.1%, and 68.8%, respectively. At baseline, the C statistic of REVEAL Lite 2 was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.69-0.80), compared with 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) for the COMPERA four-strata model and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.58-0.69) for the COMPERA three-strata model. All C statistic differences between REVEAL Lite 2 and the other models were statistically significant at baseline.
Interpretation: Our analysis showed that REVEAL Lite 2 was better at baseline at discriminating risk in this patient population. Future guidelines should consider including REVEAL Lite 2 in the management algorithm to help clinicians make informed decisions. Further analysis in larger cohorts could help validate these findings.
Keywords: COMPERA; COMPERA 2.0; REVEAL Lite 2; four-strata; pulmonary arterial hypertension; risk discrimination; risk score; risk stratification; survival; three-strata.
Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: S. S.: American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) interstitial lung disease research grant 2020; consulting fees for Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, United Therapeutics, Liquidia, Keros, Roivant, and Acceleron; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Johnson & Johnson, and United Therapeutics; patent submitted for Johnson & Johnson as inventor; advisory board member for United Therapeutics, Bayer, Liquidia, Acceleron, Gossamer, and Altavant; and Pulmonary Vascular Diseases Network member, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). C. F.: nonpersonal grant from Pfizer and Novartis; consulting for Janssen outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. None declared: (N. V. H., F. W., M. W., D. T N., R. B., E. A. G.).
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society derived three- and four-strata risk stratification models in pulmonary arterial hypertension: introducing an internet-based risk stratification calculator.Eur Heart J Open. 2023 Feb 21;3(2):oead012. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oead012. eCollection 2023 Mar. Eur Heart J Open. 2023. PMID: 36959867 Free PMC article.
-
Predicting Survival in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: The REVEAL Risk Score Calculator 2.0 and Comparison With ESC/ERS-Based Risk Assessment Strategies.Chest. 2019 Aug;156(2):323-337. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.02.004. Epub 2019 Feb 14. Chest. 2019. PMID: 30772387
-
Comparison of Contemporary Risk Scores in All Groups of Pulmonary Hypertension: A Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute GoDeep Meta-Registry Analysis.Chest. 2024 Sep;166(3):585-603. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.03.018. Epub 2024 Mar 19. Chest. 2024. PMID: 38508334 Free PMC article.
-
[Pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with congenital heart disease: current issues and health care situation].Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2013 Jun;138(23):1247-52. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1343189. Epub 2013 May 29. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2013. PMID: 23720182 Review. German.
-
Definition, epidemiology and registries of pulmonary hypertension.Heart Fail Rev. 2016 May;21(3):223-8. doi: 10.1007/s10741-015-9510-y. Heart Fail Rev. 2016. PMID: 26438630 Review.
Cited by
-
Experimental animal models and patient-derived platforms to bridge preclinical discovery and translational therapeutics in pulmonary arterial hypertension.J Transl Med. 2025 Jun 17;23(1):665. doi: 10.1186/s12967-025-06709-7. J Transl Med. 2025. PMID: 40528193 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Risk stratification and treatment goals in pulmonary arterial hypertension.Eur Respir J. 2024 Oct 31;64(4):2401323. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01323-2024. Print 2024 Oct. Eur Respir J. 2024. PMID: 39209472 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources