4.8 Article

Long-term response to calcium channel blockers in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 111, 期 23, 页码 3105-3111

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.488486

关键词

calcium channel blockers; follow-up studies; hypertension, pulmonary; nitric oxide; pulmonary circulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Characteristics of patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) who benefit from long-term calcium channel blockers (CCB) are unknown. Methods and Results - Acute pulmonary vasodilator testing with epoprostenol or nitric oxide was performed in 557 IPAH patients. Acute responders, defined by a fall in both mean pulmonary artery pressure ( PAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) > 20%, received long-term oral CCB. Patients who benefit from long-term CCB were defined as those being in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I or II after at least 1 year on CCB monotherapy. Among the 70 patients who displayed acute pulmonary vasoreactivity (12.6%; 95% CI, 9.8% to 15.3%) and received CCB therapy, only 38 showed long-term improvement (6.8%; 95% CI, 4.7% to 8.9%). Long-term CCB responders had less severe disease at baseline than patients who failed. During acute vasodilator testing, long-term CCB responders displayed a more pronounced fall in mean PAP (-39 +/- 11% versus -26 +/- 7%; P < 0.0001), reaching an absolute value of mean PAP lower than that measured in patients who failed (33 +/- 8 versus 46 +/- 10 mm Hg; P < 0.0001). After 7.0 +/- 4.1 years, all but 1 long-term CCB responders were alive in NYHA class I or II, with a sustained hemodynamic improvement. In the group of patients who failed on CCB, the 5-year survival rate was 48%. Conclusions - Long-term CCB responders represent < 10% of IPAH patients evaluated in a pulmonary vascular referral center. During acute vasodilator testing, these patients showed significantly lower levels of both mean PAP and PVR, which reached near-normal values.

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

4.8
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