ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Rheumatology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1626546
This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in Understanding and Managing Systemic Sclerosis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: Bridging Prognostic Biomarkers to Therapeutic InnovationsView all 4 articles
Comparison Analysis of Cardiopulmonary Features in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease: Results
Provisionally accepted
Mi ZHOU1,2*
Binghua Wang2
Ming-jiao Liao2rui yang2Jing Tan2Wen-Jun Zhang2
Chun Ka Wong1
Chung Wah SIU1
Lixue Yin3- 1The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR China
- 2Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital Wenjiang Hospital, CHENGDU, China
- 3sichuan provincial people's hospital, chengdu, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Purpose： We aimed to identify different cardiopulmonary involvement patterns in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). Methods: Integrated evaluation of cardiopulmonary function in patients with SSc and MCTD by the laboratory experiments, pulmonary function test, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), transthoracic echocardiography, and 12-lead electrocardiography. Results: One hundred and thirty-eight patients with SSc and 56 patients with MCTD were enrolled in the study. Patients with MCTD exhibited a higher SBP (128.73±16.82 VS. 121.95±21.22, p=0.03), DBP (75.84±10.96 VS. 70.79±14.47, p=0.02), and MAP (92.89±13.02 VS. 87.17±13.81, p=0.009) compared to the SSc group. Levels of Sao2 at pre-6MWD (96.55±2.61 VS. 98.67±2.05, p<0.001) and post-6MWD (95.73±5.46 VS. 98.40±2.73, p=0.002) were markedly lower in MCTD patients compared to the SSc population. Laboratory analysis indicated that MCTD patients had a lower PLT count (221.78±71.88 VS. 253.96±80.13, p=0.01) and higher TNT (31.32±74.85 VS.12.83±16.30, p=0.04) and BNP levels (193.35±351.59 VS. 57.37±53.68, p=0.04) compared to patients with SSc.Pulmonary function revealed that decreased FEF50% predicted value (88.69±44.58VS. vs. 122.86±59.57, p<0.001) and a higher proportion of patients with FEF75<65% predicted value (28.26 % VS.10.71%, p=0.009) in the SSc group than that of the MCTD group. Compared to SSc patients, patients with MCTD showed an increased LVEDV (91.85±32.87 VS. 73.32±24.75, p<0.001) and LVESV ( 30.59±16.13 VS. 24.10±8.99, p=0.006), alongside decreased LVEF measured by the Simpson method (62.48±6.33 VS. 66.58±6.94, p<0.001). Additionally, a higher proportion of patients in the MCTD group demonstrated moderate or above probability of pulmonary hypertension (39.29% VS. 13.04%, p=0.000). Conclusion: We found small airway dysfunction in patients with SSc and impaired left ventricular systolic function in patients with MCTD in this cross-sectional analysis. The findings indicate that there is significant heterogeneity in the cardiopulmonary involvement patterns, although these are both connective tissue diseases with similar disease duration and comorbidity burden.
Keywords: Pulmonary Function, cardiac function, left ventricular ejection fraction, Echocardiography, Electrocardiography
Received: 11 May 2025; Accepted: 21 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 ZHOU, Wang, Liao, yang, Tan, Zhang, Wong, SIU and Yin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Mi ZHOU, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, SAR China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.