Cited by 47Pulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesCongenital Heart Disease Studies

Survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients awaiting lung transplantation

Open access
Gomberg-Maitland, Mardi, Glassner-Kolmin, Cherylanne, Watson, Sydeaka, Frantz, Robert, Park, Myung, Frost, Adaani, Benza, Raymond L., Torres, Fernando·2013·The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Abstract

Background Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease with lung transplantation as the only option for those patients refractory to medical therapy. Although several equations have been developed to predict PAH patient survival, it is unclear whether they can predict survival for patients awaiting transplantation.Methods Data were analyzed on 827 patients listed since 1991 on the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Overall survival and survival for patients listed prior to and after January 1, 2006 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and compared with predicted survival from the pulmonary hypertension connection (PHC) and lung allocation system (LAS) equations. A new equation using a novel model selection algorithm for correlated covariates and missing data was developed using clinical factors and variables in the LAS score. Model validation statistics were calculated and averaged across 500 bootstrap resamples within each of 5 imputation data sets. K-M with 95% confidence intervals and receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves assessed model performance.Results PHC predicted overall survival but underestimated and overestimated survival for those listed pre- and post-2006, respectively. The best model included baseline 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), invasive cardiac output and resting oxygen requirement (O2). Factors associated with 1-year waitlist survival included: resting O2 amount; invasive hemodynamics; 6MWD; and functional class. The new equation by ROC analysis outperformed the LAS and PHC equations.Conclusions Current prediction models overestimate survival for PAH patients listed for transplant in the LAS era. This new survival equation can help guide clinicians caring for PAH patients with progression of disease requiring transplant.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.healun.2013.08.016

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In countries where lung allocation scores do not fully capture waitlist mortality for pulmonary arterial hypertension, early transplant consideration is particularly important.

    “This issue is of particular importance in countries where a lung allocation system utilizes a score that does not fully capture the waitlist mortality for individuals with PAH (276–280).”

    From Consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: An update from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. (2021) · cites this paper as [278]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the lung allocation score disadvantages PAH patients, that better assessment of transplant urgency could improve outcomes, and that PAH patients may be listed late. The paper examines the US allocation system, however; it does not establish the same concern for allocation systems in other countries. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gomberg-Maitland, M., Glassner-Kolmin, C., Watson, S., Frantz, R., Park, M., Frost, A., Benza, R. L., & Torres, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Allegheny General Hospital (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
1179-1186
ISSN
1053-2498 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2076842262
Cited by
47
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Novartis
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Bayer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Actelion Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
Keywords
pulmonary arterial hypertension, lung transplantation, survival prediction, waitlist survival, 6-minute walk distance, invasive hemodynamics, functional class, prediction model, missing data imputation, model selection
MeSH terms
Cardiac Output, Female, Hemodynamics, Humans, Hypertension, Pulmonary, Male, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Waiting Lists, Models, Statistical, Survival Rate, Lung Transplantation, Walking, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Familial Primary Pulmonary Hypertension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review