4.6 Review

Pulmonary Hypertension: A Brief Guide for Clinicians

期刊

MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
卷 95, 期 9, 页码 1978-1988

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.04.039

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer AG
  2. Good Publication Practice (GPP3)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is classified into 5 clinical subgroups: pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), PH due to left-sided heart disease, PH due to chronic lung disease, chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH), and PH with an unclear and/or multifactorial mechanisms. A range of underlying conditions can lead to these disorders. Overall, PH affects approximately 1% of the global population, and over half of patients with heart failure may be affected. Cardiologists are therefore likely to encounter PH in their practice. Routine tests in patients with symptoms and physical findings suggestive of PH include electrocardiography, chest radiography, and pulmonary function tests. Transthoracic echocardiography is used to estimate the probability of PH. All patients with suspected or confirmed PH, without confirmed left-sided heart or lung diseases, should have a ventilation-perfusion scan to exclude CTEPH. Right-sided heart catheterization is essential for accurate diagnosis and classification. All patients with PAH or CTEPH must be referred to a specialist center. Surgical pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for eligible patients with CTEPH. Targeted treatments (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists, prostacyclin analogues, and prostacyclin receptor agonists) are licensed for patients with PAH. The soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat is the only licensed targeted therapy for patients with inoperable or persistent/recurrent CTEPH. Management of PH resulting from left-sided heart disease primarily involves treatment of the underlying condition. (C) 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据