4.7 Article

Long-term outcome after pulmonary endarterectomy

Journal

Publisher

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200801-101OC

Keywords

chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; surgery; survival; lung function; hemodynamic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: There are few follow-up studies on long-term cardiopulmonary function after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), the operation of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Objectives: To prospectively evaluate long-term outcome of patients with CTEPH treated with PEA. Methods: Between 1994 and 2006, 157 patients (mean age 55 yr) were treated with PEA at Pavia University Hospital. The patients were evaluated before PEA and at 3 months (n = 132), 1 year (n = 110), 2 years (n = 86), 3 years (n = 69), and 4 years (n = 49) afterward by NYHA class, right heart hemodynamic, spirometry, carbon monoxide transfer factor (T-LCO), arterial blood gas, and treadmill incremental exercise test. Measurements and Main Results: Cumulative survival was 84%. Within 3 months, 18 patients died in-hospital and 2 had lung transplantation; during long-term follow-up, 6 died, 1 had lung transplantation, and 3 had a second PEA (2.5 events per 100 person-years). NYHA class III-IV was the most important predictor of late death, lung transplant, or PEA redo (hazard ratio, 3.94). Extraordinary improvement in NYHA class, hemodynamic, and Pa-O2 were achieved in the first 3 months (P < 0.001) and persisted during follow-up; exercise tolerance progressively increased over time (P < 0.001). At 4 years, although 74% of the patients were in NYHA class I and none was in class IV, 24% had pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 500 dyne.s/cm(5) or Pa-O2 less than 60 mm Hg; they were significantly older and were more frequently in NYHA class III-IV 3 months after surgery than the others. Conclusions: After PEA, long-term survival and cardiopulmonary function recovery is excellent in most patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available