Anna R Hemnes1, Meredith E Pugh2, Alexander L Newman2, Ivan M Robbins2, James Tolle2, Eric D Austin3, John H Newman2. 1. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: anna.r.hemnes@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 3. Division of Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CO(2) excretion is impaired in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) due to underlying vascular obstruction and increased dead space. Our aim was to determine whether resting end tidal CO(2) (Etco(2)) could differentiate patients with PAH from those with pulmonary venous hypertension (PVH) or patients without pulmonary hypertension (PH) and whether successful treatment of PAH resulted in higher Etco(2) values. METHODS: We performed Etco(2) measurements for five breaths at rest and after a 6-min walk test (6MWT) in patients seen at our pulmonary vascular center. Mean Etco(2) values were correlated with 6-min walk distance and right-sided heart catheterization data. RESULTS: We enrolled 84 patients with PAH, 17 with PVH without left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and seven with no PH and no severe alterations in pulmonary function testing. Etco(2) was significantly lower in patients with PAH than in those with no PH and PVH (P < .0001 PAH vs both groups). Etco(2) correlated with the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure-to-pulmonary artery occlusion pressure gradient (r = -0.50, P = .0002) and pulmonary vascular resistance (r = -0.44, P = .002). Etco(2) after 6MWT correlated with walk distance (r = 0.34, P = .003). In patients with prostaglandin therapy escalation, Etco(2) increased in those who had clinical improvement, whereas in patients who did not improve clinically, Etco(2) failed to rise (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Etco(2) is a promising tool to differentiate patients with PAH from those with PVH or no PH, correlates with diagnostic and prognostic hemodynamic indicators, and may increase with successful treatment of PAH.
BACKGROUND:CO(2) excretion is impaired in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) due to underlying vascular obstruction and increased dead space. Our aim was to determine whether resting end tidal CO(2) (Etco(2)) could differentiate patients with PAH from those with pulmonary venous hypertension (PVH) or patients without pulmonary hypertension (PH) and whether successful treatment of PAH resulted in higher Etco(2) values. METHODS: We performed Etco(2) measurements for five breaths at rest and after a 6-min walk test (6MWT) in patients seen at our pulmonary vascular center. Mean Etco(2) values were correlated with 6-min walk distance and right-sided heart catheterization data. RESULTS: We enrolled 84 patients with PAH, 17 with PVH without left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and seven with no PH and no severe alterations in pulmonary function testing. Etco(2) was significantly lower in patients with PAH than in those with no PH and PVH (P < .0001 PAH vs both groups). Etco(2) correlated with the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure-to-pulmonary artery occlusion pressure gradient (r = -0.50, P = .0002) and pulmonary vascular resistance (r = -0.44, P = .002). Etco(2) after 6MWT correlated with walk distance (r = 0.34, P = .003). In patients with prostaglandin therapy escalation, Etco(2) increased in those who had clinical improvement, whereas in patients who did not improve clinically, Etco(2) failed to rise (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS:Etco(2) is a promising tool to differentiate patients with PAH from those with PVH or no PH, correlates with diagnostic and prognostic hemodynamic indicators, and may increase with successful treatment of PAH.
Authors: Amanda B Methvin; Anjali T Owens; Anthony G Emmi; Michael Allen; Susan E Wiegers; Daniel L Dries; Kenneth B Margulies; Paul R Forfia Journal: Chest Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: David B Badesch; Hunter C Champion; Miguel Angel Gomez Sanchez; Marius M Hoeper; James E Loyd; Alessandra Manes; Michael McGoon; Robert Naeije; Horst Olschewski; Ronald J Oudiz; Adam Torbicki Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeffrey S Arkles; Alexander R Opotowsky; Jason Ojeda; Frances Rogers; Tong Liu; Vikram Prassana; Lucas Marzec; Harold I Palevsky; Victor A Ferrari; Paul R Forfia Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Caitlin E Welch; Evan L Brittain; Alexander L Newman; Ivan M Robbins; Meredith E Pugh; John H Newman; Anna R Hemnes Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-06
Authors: Nehal Hussain; Athanasios Charalampopoulos; Sheila Ramjug; Robin Condliffe; Charlie A Elliot; Laurence O'Toole; Andrew Swift; David G Kiely Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Don Hayes; Curt J Daniels; Stephen Kirkby; Benjamin T Kopp; Kerri L Nicholson; Ashley E Nance; Mark L Splaingard Journal: Lung Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Evan L Brittain; Meredith E Pugh; Li Wang; Alex L Newman; Ivan M Robbins; John H Newman; Anna R Hemnes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Athanasios Charalampopoulos; Robert Lewis; Peter Hickey; Charlotte Durrington; Charlie Elliot; Robin Condliffe; Ian Sabroe; David G Kiely Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2018-06-06