A comparative study on the diagnostic efficacy of different diagnostic criteria for exercise pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND

Exercise pulmonary hypertension (ePH) has three common diagnostic criteria: the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) > 30 mmHg and total pulmonary resistance (TPR) at peak exercise >3 Wood units ("Joint criteria"), the mPAP/cardiac output (CO) slope of the two-point measurement (ΔmPAP/ΔCO) > 3 mmHg/L/min ("Two-point criteria"), and the mPAP/CO slope of the multi-point data >3 mmHg/L/min ("Multi-point criteria"). We compared the diagnostic efficacy of these criteria, which remain controversial.

METHODS

Following resting right heart catheterization (RHC), all patients underwent exercise RHC (eRHC). The patients were divided into different ePH and non-exercise pulmonary hypertension (nPH) groups according to the above criteria. Joint criteria were used as the reference to compare the other two, namely diagnostic concordance, sensitivity and specificity. We conducted further analysis to determine the correlation between different diagnostic criteria grouping and the clinical severity of PH.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients with mPAPrest ≤ 20 mmHg were enrolled. a) Diagnostic concordance, sensitivity and specificity: compared with Joint criteria, the diagnostic concordances of Two-point criteria and Multi-point criteria were 78.8% (κ = 0.570, P < 0.01) and 90.9% (κ = 0.818, P < 0.01), respectively; the sensitivity of Two-point criteria was high (100%), but the specificity was poor (56.3%); however, Multi-point criteria exhibited higher sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (87.5%). b) Clinically relevant analysis: a significant difference was observed in several clinical severity indicators between ePH and nPH patients according to Multi-point criteria grouping(all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Multi-point criteria are more clinically relevant and provide better diagnostic efficiency.