Abstract
The objective of this analysis was to compare clinician-based and formally calculated risk assessments by REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA 2.0 and to characterize parenteral prostacyclin utilization within 90 days of baseline in high-risk patients. A multisite, double-blind, retrospective chart review of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) was conducted with an index period of January 2014-March 2017. Patients were categorized into the "any PAH medication" or "prostacyclin-enriched" cohort based on latest PAH medication initiated within the index period. Clinicians classified the patient's 1-year mortality risk as "low," "intermediate," or "high" based on their clinical assessment. REVEAL Lite 2 and COMPERA 2.0 scores were independently calculated. Risk assessment congruency was evaluated. Parenteral prostacyclin use was evaluated within 90 days of baseline. Thirty-two clinicians participated and abstracted data for 299 patients with PAH. At baseline, mean patient age was 52 years, 6-min walk distance was 226 m, and most patients were WHO functional class II or III. Half of the patients (53%) were classified by clinician assessment as intermediate risk, while most were classified as high risk by REVEAL Lite 2 (59%) and intermediate-high risk by COMPERA 2.0 (52%). Parenteral prostascyclins were underutilized in high-risk patients, and not initiated in a timely fashion. Clinician-assessed risk category was incongruent with tool-based risk assessments in 40%-54% of patients with PAH, suggesting an underestimation of the patient's risk category by clinician gestalt. Additionally, there was a lack of timely prostacyclin initiation for patients with PAH stratified as high-risk by either tool.