4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Pulmonary Hypertension in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Fibrosis: Prevalence and Hemodynamic Differences in Lung Transplant Recipients at Transplant Center's Referral Time

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 47, Issue 7, Pages 2161-2165

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.01.031

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction. Single or bilateral lung transplantation is a therapeutic procedure for endstage lung diseases. In particular, in cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pulmonary fibrosis, patients can be referred to the transplant center late and with important comorbilities. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with lung diseases not only is an index of poor outcome but also is an indication for bilateral procedure. Methods. We conducted a retrospective observational study. We analyzed right heart catheterization in a consecutive series of patients who underwent lung transplantation from 2006 to 2014 for end-stage COPD and pulmonary fibrosis. Results. We included in the study 73 patients (35 with fibrosis and 38 with COPD); prevalence of PH was higher in the COPD group (84.3% vs 31.4%), and with worse hemodynamic parameters (mean pulmonary artery pressure [30.3 mm Hg vs 24.1 mm Hg]). The majority of COPD patients presented mild or moderate PH, and fibrosis patients showed normal pulmonary arterial pressures. Conclusions. COPD patients are referred to the Transplant Center with a higher prevalence of PH because of an echocardiographic screening or a late referral, but many patients survive on the waiting list and undergo the procedure. On the other hand, patients transplanted with interstitial diseases have a lower prevalence of PH; this can be explained by an earlier referral or a higher mortality on the waiting list and a more aggressive and rapidly progressing disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available