BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is potentially curative in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), some patients have distally distributed disease that is not amenable to surgery. The aetiology and characteristics of this patient group are currently not well understood. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the baseline demographic features and outcomes in subjects with distal CTEPH, those with proximal CTEPH and those with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) to determine whether these conditions represent separate entities or whether they exist along the same spectrum of disease. METHODS: The medical history, clinical characteristics, bone morphogenetic protein receptor type II (BMPR2) mutation status and outcomes of 96 subjects with IPAH, 35 with distal CTEPH and 68 with proximal CTEPH referred to a single specialist centre between 1994 and 2005 were reviewed. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the distal CTEPH, proximal CTEPH and IPAH groups in age (55.9 years vs 54.8 years vs 46.2 years, p<0.001), proportion who were male (43% vs 69% vs 29%, p<0.001), previous deep vein thrombosis (28.6% vs 30.9% vs 3.1%, p<0.001), positive BMPR2 status (0% vs 0% vs 15%, p = 0.018), mean pulmonary artery pressure (47.3 mm Hg vs 45.4 mm Hg vs 54.8 mm Hg, p<0.001) and total pulmonary resistance (12.9 WU vs 12.4 WU vs 18.1 WU, p<0.001). Patients with distal CTEPH and those with IPAH were managed similarly and had comparable survival characteristics (1 year survival 77% vs 86%; 3 year survival 53% vs 60%; p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with distal CTEPH share certain demographic features with patients with proximal CTEPH that not only indicate a common aetiology but also help to differentiate them from patients with IPAH. Despite more favourable haemodynamic parameters in those with distal CTEPH, patients in this group had a poor long-term outcome which was similar to that of patients with IPAH.
BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is potentially curative in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), some patients have distally distributed disease that is not amenable to surgery. The aetiology and characteristics of this patient group are currently not well understood. OBJECTIVES: This study compares the baseline demographic features and outcomes in subjects with distal CTEPH, those with proximal CTEPH and those with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) to determine whether these conditions represent separate entities or whether they exist along the same spectrum of disease. METHODS: The medical history, clinical characteristics, bone morphogenetic protein receptor type II (BMPR2) mutation status and outcomes of 96 subjects with IPAH, 35 with distal CTEPH and 68 with proximal CTEPH referred to a single specialist centre between 1994 and 2005 were reviewed. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the distal CTEPH, proximal CTEPH and IPAH groups in age (55.9 years vs 54.8 years vs 46.2 years, p<0.001), proportion who were male (43% vs 69% vs 29%, p<0.001), previous deep vein thrombosis (28.6% vs 30.9% vs 3.1%, p<0.001), positive BMPR2 status (0% vs 0% vs 15%, p = 0.018), mean pulmonary artery pressure (47.3 mm Hg vs 45.4 mm Hg vs 54.8 mm Hg, p<0.001) and total pulmonary resistance (12.9 WU vs 12.4 WU vs 18.1 WU, p<0.001). Patients with distal CTEPH and those with IPAH were managed similarly and had comparable survival characteristics (1 year survival 77% vs 86%; 3 year survival 53% vs 60%; p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with distal CTEPH share certain demographic features with patients with proximal CTEPH that not only indicate a common aetiology but also help to differentiate them from patients with IPAH. Despite more favourable haemodynamic parameters in those with distal CTEPH, patients in this group had a poor long-term outcome which was similar to that of patients with IPAH.
Authors: R D Machado; M W Pauciulo; J R Thomson; K B Lane; N V Morgan; L Wheeler; J A Phillips; J Newman; D Williams; N Galiè; A Manes; K McNeil; M Yacoub; G Mikhail; P Rogers; P Corris; M Humbert; D Donnai; G Martensson; L Tranebjaerg; J E Loyd; R C Trembath; W C Nichols Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2000-12-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Hossein Ardeschir Ghofrani; Ralph Wiedemann; Frank Rose; Horst Olschewski; Ralph Theo Schermuly; Norbert Weissmann; Werner Seeger; Friedrich Grimminger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-04-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J R Thomson; R D Machado; M W Pauciulo; N V Morgan; M Humbert; G C Elliott; K Ward; M Yacoub; G Mikhail; P Rogers; J Newman; L Wheeler; T Higenbottam; J S Gibbs; J Egan; A Crozier; A Peacock; R Allcock; P Corris; J E Loyd; R C Trembath; W C Nichols Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Patricia A Thistlethwaite; Makato Mo; Michael M Madani; Reena Deutsch; Daniel Blanchard; David P Kapelanski; Stuart W Jamieson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: M Humbert; Z Deng; G Simonneau; R J Barst; O Sitbon; M Wolf; N Cuervo; K J Moore; S E Hodge; J A Knowles; J H Morse Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Sanjay Mehta; Doug Helmersen; Steeve Provencher; Naushad Hirani; Fraser D Rubens; Marc De Perrot; Mark Blostein; Kim Boutet; George Chandy; Carole Dennie; John Granton; Paul Hernandez; Andrew M Hirsch; Karen Laframboise; Robert D Levy; Dale Lien; Simon Martel; Gerard Shoemaker; John Swiston; Justin Weinkauf Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Michael McGettrick; Paul McCaughey; Alexander MacLellan; Melanie Brewis; A Colin Church; Martin K Johnson Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: Christina A Eichstaedt; Jeremias Verweyen; Michael Halank; Nicola Benjamin; Christine Fischer; Eckhard Mayer; Stefan Guth; Christoph B Wiedenroth; Benjamin Egenlauf; Satenik Harutyunova; Panagiota Xanthouli; Alberto M Marra; Heinrike Wilkens; Ralf Ewert; Katrin Hinderhofer; Ekkehard Grünig Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.923