Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

The annual prognostic ability of FACED and E-FACED scores to predict mortality in patients with bronchiectasis

David de la Rosa Carrillo, Rodrigo Athanazio, Rosa Maria Girón Moreno, Luis Máiz Carro, Casilda Olveira, Javier de Gracia, Montserrat Vendrell, Concepción Prados Sánchez, Georgina Gramblicka, Monica Corso Pereira, Fernando Lundgren, Mara Fernandes De Figueiredo, Francisco Arancibia, Samia Rached, Miguel-Angel Martínez-Garcia
ERJ Open Research 2018 4: 00139-2017; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00139-2017
David de la Rosa Carrillo
1Pneumology Unit, Hospital Plató, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David de la Rosa Carrillo
  • For correspondence: david.rosa23@gmail.com
Rodrigo Athanazio
2Pulmonary Division, Heart Institute (InCor) Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rosa Maria Girón Moreno
3Pneumology Service, Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luis Máiz Carro
4Pneumology Service, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Casilda Olveira
5Pneumology Service, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga/Universidad de Málaga, Malaga, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Javier de Gracia
6Pneumology Service, Hospital Vall Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Montserrat Vendrell
7Pneumology Service, Hospital Josep Trueta, Idibgi, UdG, Girona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Concepción Prados Sánchez
8Pneumology Service, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georgina Gramblicka
9Pneumology Service, Hospital del Tórax Cetrángolo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monica Corso Pereira
10Pneumology Service, Universidade Estadual de Campinas UNICAMP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fernando Lundgren
11Pneumology Service, Hospital Octávio de Freitas, Recife, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mara Fernandes De Figueiredo
12Pneumology Service, Hospital de Messejana, Fortaleza, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Francisco Arancibia
13Pneumology Service, Instituto Nacional del Tórax, Santiago de Chile, Chile
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samia Rached
2Pulmonary Division, Heart Institute (InCor) Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miguel-Angel Martínez-Garcia
14Pulmonary Service, Hospital Politécnico y Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Both FACED and E-FACED scores have shown good short-term prognostic value for predicting mortality in bronchiectasis http://ow.ly/albl30i11bv

To the Editor:

Bronchiectasis is a disease defined by a permanent and usually progressive bronchial dilation associated with multiple exacerbations and decreased health-related quality of life [1–3]. Improvement in the current knowledge of this condition's pathophysiology has clearly highlighted its complex and heterogeneous profile, whose severity or prognosis cannot be defined using a single variable [4]. Accordingly, multidimensional scores including demographical, clinical, microbiological and radiological data have recently been developed and validated as useful tools to better evaluate the disease's severity and prognosis: FACED (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), age, chronic colonisation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, radiological extension and dyspnoea), E-FACED (FACED plus exacerbations) and the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI) [5–8].

The FACED and E-FACED scores have been shown to predict all-cause and respiratory mortality in large cohorts of patients with bronchiectasis from different countries, both at 5 years [5–7] and after long-term follow-up [9]. However, while the BSI score has demonstrated good predictive value for mortality risk from the first to the fourth year from the radiological diagnosis of bronchiectasis [8], this parameter has not been yet analysed in FACED and E-FACED scores. Since new therapies are emerging to treat this disease, it is important to identify possible surrogate markers or clinical tools that could act as relevant end-points and predict short-term outcomes [10]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the FACED and E-FACED scores to predict annual mortality in patients with bronchiectasis from the first to the fifth year of follow-up, beginning at the radiological diagnosis.

Data were analysed from an international, observational and multicentre study of historical cohorts in adult patients with bronchiectasis from Spain and Latin America. These data were originally used to create and validate the FACED and E-FACED scores published elsewhere [5–7]. The diagnosis of bronchiectasis was made using high-resolution computed tomography in all patients. Patients with cystic fibrosis were excluded from the study. All centres used the same protocol to collect patients' information as previously published [5–7]. The variables studied were: age, sex, body mass index, dyspnoea (modified Medical Research Council score), presence of chronic respiratory failure, exacerbations and hospitalisations in the previous year, radiological findings, bronchiectasis aetiology, microbiological profile, respiratory function test and usual treatments. All variables were collected as close as possible to the bronchiectasis diagnosis date to avoid interference from the various treatments during its clinical evolution. The vital status of each patient was dated yearly from the first to the fifth year, from the date of the radiological diagnosis of bronchiectasis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) and confidence interval at 95% were used to calculate the annual predictive power of FACED and E-FACED scores for all-cause mortality.

This study included 1470 consecutive patients: 819 from Spain (seven centres) and 651 from three different countries in Latin America (one centre from Argentina, four from Brazil and one from Chile). The mean±sd age of the included patients was 54.1±17.7 years, and 61% of them were female. The mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 65.7±25.2%. The number of exacerbations in the previous year was 1.62±1.8, and the number of hospitalisations was 0.56±1.1. Chronic bronchial infection by P. aeruginosa was identified in 27.5% of the patients. Mean FACED and E-FACED scores were 2.36±1.8 and 3.02±2.23, respectively. According to the FACED and E-FACED scores, 56.6% and 61.5% of patients presented mild bronchiectasis; 29.5% and 30% moderate bronchiectasis and 13.8% and 8.6% severe bronchiectasis, respectively. The cumulative mortality was as follows. First year: 37 (2.5%) patients; second year: 72 (4.9%) patients; third year: 129 (8.8%) patients; fourth year 184 (12.5%) patients; and fifth year 249 (16.9%) patients. Figure 1 presents annual AUC ROC for FACED (range 0.77–0.83) and E-FACED scores (range 0.79–0.84) during the 5-year follow-up period. There were no statistical differences between the yearly predictive power of BSI compared with FACED/E-FACED scores. The range value of AUC ROC for BSI (0.79–0.82) was very similar to the range value for FACED (0.77–0.83) and E-FACED (0.79–0.84). Moreover, bronchiectasis classified as mild by FACED or E-FACED presented a decreased yearly mortality risk compared with those categorised as moderate and severe, as assessed by the log rank (Mantel–Cox) test. The results were similar for both scores and for every year. The differences between groups were more evident from the third year, due to the increasing number of accumulated deaths.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (area under the curve (AUC) (95% CI)) for FACED (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, age, chronic colonisation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, radiological extension and dyspnoea) and E-FACED (FACED plus exacerbations) for each year of follow-up. a) year 1; b) year 2; c) year 3; d) year 4; e) year 5.

Our study shows that both FACED and E-FACED scores maintained an excellent predictive power for all-cause mortality, even in shorter periods of time than originally described [5–7]. We analysed data from a large cohort of patients, who were well-characterised using standardised protocols in specialised outpatient clinics. Mortality results were similar in all the participating centres, even though the patients presented very different clinical characteristics and underlying aetiologies of bronchiectasis.

FACED and E-FACED scores are easy to remember and to apply, and have proved useful for predicting mid- and long-term mortality in different cohorts from several countries [5–7, 9]. The results of our study show that they may also be useful, in the same way as the BSI score, for predictions of short-term mortality. This prognostic ability could improve bronchiectasis management in both daily practice and clinical trial scenarios. In daily practice, this short-term prognosis may help to identify patients who need more intensive or preventive treatments, such as chronic antibiotics or anti-inflammatory agents, and to develop personalised management strategies that allow an individualised approach. New guidelines that standardise bronchiectasis management based on the best available evidence may help decision making of when to apply treatments of higher or lower intensity, depending on the multidimensional severity of the disease and its expected mortality [11, 12]. As regards the clinical trials scenario, we believe that these scores may play an important role in identifying a more precise population that could benefit from specific interventions based on a shorter or longer expected mechanism of action [13].

One strength of this study is the large number of patients included from very different settings with a well-characterised baseline profile. Although all the clinical variables used to establish both scores were recorded as near as possible to the diagnosis of bronchiectasis, one potential limitation of this study is that the treatments administered over the 5 years of follow-up could have influenced the mortality results. However, no medical treatment for bronchiectasis has yet been proven to reduce short- or long-term mortality. Another limitation is that we could not assess the possible role of comorbidities in mortality risk, as we did not have enough data to permit the calculation of the Charlson index or the bronchiectasis aetiology comorbidity index [14].

In conclusion, FACED and E-FACED scores have been shown to be useful to predict all-cause mortality, not only in the long term, but also for short-term follow-up (yearly from the first to the fifth year after diagnosis). Further studies should validate our results in different populations of patients with bronchiectasis, evaluate whether the two scores are able to predict exacerbations and other key outcomes in short-term periods and assess which variables could influence the prognostic capacity of these scores over time, as well as to evaluate both scores' sensitivity to change after therapeutic interventions.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Authors' contributions to the study: D. de la Rosa, R. Athanazio and M.A. Martínez-García designed the study, contributed to data acquisition and interpretation, supervised the study, and wrote the manuscript. The other authors contributed to data acquisition and interpretation, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version to be published.

  • Received November 4, 2017.
  • Accepted January 18, 2018.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. O'Donnell AE
    . Bronchiectasis. Chest 2008; 134: 815–823.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Barker AF
    . Bronchiectasis. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1383–1393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. McShane PJ,
    2. Naureckas ET,
    3. Tino G, et al.
    Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 647–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Loebinger MR,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Hansell DM, et al.
    Mortality in bronchiectasis: a long-term study assessing the factors influencing survival. Eur Respir J 2009; 34: 843–849.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Martínez-García MÁ,
    2. de Gracia J,
    3. Vendrell Relat M, et al.
    Multidimensional approach to non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: the FACED score. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 1357–1367.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Martinez-Garcia MA,
    2. Athanazio RA,
    3. Girón R, et al.
    Predicting high risk of exacerbations in bronchiectasis: the E-FACED score. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12: 275–284.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Athanazio R,
    2. Pereira MC,
    3. Gramblicka G, et al.
    Latin America validation of FACED score in patients with bronchiectasis: an analysis of six cohorts. BMC Pulm Med 2017; 17: 73.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Chalmers JD,
    2. Goeminne P,
    3. Aliberti S, et al.
    The Bronchiectasis Severity Index. An international derivation and validation study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189: 576–585.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ellis HC,
    2. Cowman S,
    3. Fernandes M, et al.
    Predicting mortality in bronchiectasis using bronchiectasis severity index and FACED scores: a 19-year cohort study. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 482–489.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Aliberti S,
    2. Masefield S,
    3. Polverino E, et al.
    Research priorities in bronchiectasis: a consensus statement from the EMBARC Clinical Research Collaboration. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 632–647.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Polverino E,
    2. Goeminne PC,
    3. McDonnell MJ, et al.
    European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700629.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Martínez-García MA,
    2. Máiz L,
    3. Olveira C, et al.
    Spanish guidelines for the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults. Arch Bronconeumol 2018; 54: 88–98.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Chalmers JD,
    2. McDonnell MJ,
    3. Rutheford R, et al.
    The generalizability of bronchiectasis randomized controlled trials: a multicenter cohort study. Respir Med 2016; 112: 51–58.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. McDonnell MJ,
    2. Aliberti S,
    3. Goeminne PC, et al.
    Comorbidities and the risk of mortality in patients with bronchiectasis: an international multicentre cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 969–979.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 4 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 4 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The annual prognostic ability of FACED and E-FACED scores to predict mortality in patients with bronchiectasis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
The annual prognostic ability of FACED and E-FACED scores to predict mortality in patients with bronchiectasis
David de la Rosa Carrillo, Rodrigo Athanazio, Rosa Maria Girón Moreno, Luis Máiz Carro, Casilda Olveira, Javier de Gracia, Montserrat Vendrell, Concepción Prados Sánchez, Georgina Gramblicka, Monica Corso Pereira, Fernando Lundgren, Mara Fernandes De Figueiredo, Francisco Arancibia, Samia Rached, Miguel-Angel Martínez-Garcia
ERJ Open Research Jan 2018, 4 (1) 00139-2017; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00139-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The annual prognostic ability of FACED and E-FACED scores to predict mortality in patients with bronchiectasis
David de la Rosa Carrillo, Rodrigo Athanazio, Rosa Maria Girón Moreno, Luis Máiz Carro, Casilda Olveira, Javier de Gracia, Montserrat Vendrell, Concepción Prados Sánchez, Georgina Gramblicka, Monica Corso Pereira, Fernando Lundgren, Mara Fernandes De Figueiredo, Francisco Arancibia, Samia Rached, Miguel-Angel Martínez-Garcia
ERJ Open Research Jan 2018, 4 (1) 00139-2017; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00139-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • CF and non-CF bronchiectasis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Unstable control of breathing can lead to ineffective NIV
  • Desmosine as a biomarker of azithromycin treatment response
  • Hypersensitivity pneumonitis in fish processing workers
Show more Original research letter

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society