Mortality trends in pulmonary arterial hypertension in Canada: a temporal analysis of survival per ESC/ERS guideline era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The evolution in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) management has been summarised in three iterations of the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines. No study has assessed whether changes in management, as reflected in the changing guidelines, has translated to improved long-term survival in PAH. Methods We performed a mixed retrospective/prospective analysis of treatment-naïve, incident PAH patients (n=392) diagnosed at three major centres in Canada from 2009 to 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on their diagnosis date and in accordance with the 2009 and 2015 ESC/ERS guideline iterations. Overall survival was assessed based on date of diagnosis and initial treatment strategy (i.e.monotherapyversuscombination therapy). Results There was a shift towards more aggressive upfront management with combination therapy in Canada after the publication of the 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines (10.4% and 30.8% in patients from 2009 to 2015 and 36.0% and 57.4% in patients diagnosed after 2015 for baseline and 2-year follow-up, respectively). A key factor associated with combination therapy after 2015 was higher pulmonary vascular resistance (p=0.009). The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates in Canada were 89.2%, 75.6% and 56.0%, respectively. Despite changes in management, there was no improvement in long-term survival before and after publication of the 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines (p=0.53). Conclusions There was an increase in the use of initial and sequential combination therapy in Canada after publication of the 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines, which was not associated with improved long-term survival. These data highlight the continued difficulties of managing this aggressive pulmonary disease in an era without a cure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".