Abstract

BackgroundIt is crucial to identify factors that can predict the risk of mortality in patients newly diagnosed with interstitial lung disease (ILD). This study sought to develop and assess a composite scoring system for mortality prediction among ILD patients based on cardiovascular parameters, which were previously reported as predictors of survival. MethodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with newly diagnosed ILD and monitored their survival status for 24 months. Surviving and deceased patients were compared regarding their baseline characteristics including clinical, pulmonary, and cardiovascular parameters. A system of composite scores was established based on significant cardiovascular parameters and the Gender–Age–Physiology (GAP) score. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to identify their optimal cut-off values. Univariate as well as multiple multivariate regression models were built to investigate the mortality prediction of different individual and combined parameters. ResultsNinety-six patients newly diagnosed with ILD underwent cardiovascular evaluation. In univariate analysis, three cardiovascular parameters were identified as significant predictors of mortality risk in ILD patients, either individually or as a combination of composite scores: tricuspid regurgitation velocity > 3.1 m/s; N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level > 300 pg/ml and computed tomography pulmonary artery/ascending aorta diameter ratio > 0.9. In multivariate analysis, a composite score of those parameters [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.37 (confidence interval [CI]:1.06–5.33); p = 0.037; Score 1] and GAP score [HR = 1.62 (CI: 1.11–2.36); p = 0.012] were the most significant predictors for mortality among ILD patients. Combination of Score 1 and GAP score (Score 2) can increase the accuracy of survival predictions (area under the curve 0.83; p < 0.001). ConclusionsA composite score based on cardiovascular parameters and the GAP score can be used to predict the risk of mortality of patients with ILD. Such a score achieved better diagnostic accuracy than the GAP score alone. Nevertheless, further larger-scale randomized controlled trials are required for evaluation of the newly proposed score and confirmation of our results.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call