4.6 Article

Clinical phenotypes and outcomes of pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease: Role of the pre-capillary component

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199164

关键词

-

资金

  1. ERS PAH Short Term Research Training Fellowship [STRTF 20145264]
  2. GSK
  3. Italian Society of Hypertension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In pulmonary hypertension (PH), both wedge pressure elevation (PAWP) and a precapillary component may affect right ventricular (RV) afterload. These changes may contribute to RV failure and prognosis. We aimed at describing the different haemodynamic phenotypes of patients with PH due to left heart disease (LHD) and at characterizing the impact of pulmonary haemodynamics on RV function and outcome PH-LHD. Methods Patients with PH-LHD were compared with treatment-naive idiopathic/heritable pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH, n = 35). PH-LHD patients were subdivided in Isolated post-capillary PH (IpcPH: diastolic pressure gradient, DPG<7 mmHg and pulmonary vascular resistance, PVR <= 3 WU, n = 37), Combined post- and pre-capillary PH (CpcPH: DPG >= 7 mmHg and PVR>3 WU, n = 27), and intermediate PH-LHD (either DPG <7 mmHg or PVR <= 3 WU, n = 29). Results Despite similar PAWP and cardiac index, haemodynamic severity and prevalence of RV dysfunction increased from IpcPH, to intermediate and CpcPH. PVR and DPG (but not compliance, Ca) were linearly correlated with RV dysfunction. CpcPH had worse prognosis (p < 0.05) than IpcPH and PAH, but similar to intermediate patients. Only NTproBNP and Ca independently predicted survival in PH-LHD. Conclusions In PH-LHD, haemodynamic characterization according to DPG and PVR provides important information on disease severity, predisposition to RV failure and prognosis. Patients presenting the CpcPH phenotype appear to have haemodynamic profile closer to PAH but with worse prognosis. In PH-LHD, Ca and NTproBNP were independent predictors of survival.

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