Xiao-Ling Cheng1, Jian-Guo He1, Zhi-Hong Liu1, Qing Gu1, Xin-Hai Ni1, Zhi-Hui Zhao1, Qin Luo1, Chang-Ming Xiong2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beilishi Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100037, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beilishi Road, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100037, China. xiongcmfw@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the relationship between pulmonary vascular capacitance (PVC) and vasoreactivity in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), and the value of PVC in predicting long-term response to CCB treatment. METHODS: Pulmonary vasodilator testing with inhaling iloprost was performed in 308 newly diagnosed IPAH patients. Acute vasodilator-responsive patients accepted CCBs treatment. Patients who benefit from long-term CCB were defined as those being in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class II or I after at least 1 year on CCB monotherapy. RESULTS: PVC had significant correlations with WHO function class, 6-min walk distance, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and pulmonary vascular resistance (r = -0.363, p < 0.001; r = 0.333, p < 0.001; r = -0.514, p < 0.001; r = -0.739, p < 0.001). Thirty-five acute vasodilator-responsive IPAH patients (11.4 %) displayed less severe disease and a higher baseline PVC (1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 ml/mmHg, p = 0.003). During acute vasodilator testing, PVC increased significantly by mean of 79 ± 48 % and reached to a higher absolute value of 2.6 ± 1.5 ml/mmHg compared with non-responsive patients (1.4 ± 1.5 ml/mmHg, p < 0.001). Furthermore, PVC increased more during acute vasodilator testing in the 24 patients who benefit from long-term CCB treatment (1.4 ± 1.3 vs. 0.5 ± 0.4 ml/mmHg, p = 0.004). The OR of increased PVC during vasodilator testing for predicting patients with long-term response to CCB was 1.24 (95 % CI 1.02-1.50, p = 0.031) as assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PVC was higher in acute vasodilator-responsive IPAH patients and may be a predictor of long-term response to CCBs therapy.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the relationship between pulmonary vascular capacitance (PVC) and vasoreactivity in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), and the value of PVC in predicting long-term response to CCB treatment. METHODS: Pulmonary vasodilator testing with inhaling iloprost was performed in 308 newly diagnosed IPAH patients. Acute vasodilator-responsive patients accepted CCBs treatment. Patients who benefit from long-term CCB were defined as those being in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class II or I after at least 1 year on CCB monotherapy. RESULTS: PVC had significant correlations with WHO function class, 6-min walk distance, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and pulmonary vascular resistance (r = -0.363, p < 0.001; r = 0.333, p < 0.001; r = -0.514, p < 0.001; r = -0.739, p < 0.001). Thirty-five acute vasodilator-responsive IPAH patients (11.4 %) displayed less severe disease and a higher baseline PVC (1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7 ml/mmHg, p = 0.003). During acute vasodilator testing, PVC increased significantly by mean of 79 ± 48 % and reached to a higher absolute value of 2.6 ± 1.5 ml/mmHg compared with non-responsive patients (1.4 ± 1.5 ml/mmHg, p < 0.001). Furthermore, PVC increased more during acute vasodilator testing in the 24 patients who benefit from long-term CCB treatment (1.4 ± 1.3 vs. 0.5 ± 0.4 ml/mmHg, p = 0.004). The OR of increased PVC during vasodilator testing for predicting patients with long-term response to CCB was 1.24 (95 % CI 1.02-1.50, p = 0.031) as assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: PVC was higher in acute vasodilator-responsive IPAH patients and may be a predictor of long-term response to CCBs therapy.
Authors: Srijoy Mahapatra; Rick A Nishimura; Paul Sorajja; Stephen Cha; Michael D McGoon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-01-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jan-Willem Lankhaar; Nico Westerhof; Theo J C Faes; C Tji-Joong Gan; Koen M Marques; Anco Boonstra; Fred G van den Berg; Pieter E Postmus; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ryan J Tedford; Paul M Hassoun; Stephen C Mathai; Reda E Girgis; Stuart D Russell; David R Thiemann; Oscar H Cingolani; James O Mudd; Barry A Borlaug; Margaret M Redfield; David J Lederer; David A Kass Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jan-Willem Lankhaar; Nico Westerhof; Theo J C Faes; Koen M J Marques; J Tim Marcus; Piet E Postmus; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2006-05-12 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: O Sitbon; M Humbert; J L Jagot; O Taravella; M Fartoukh; F Parent; P Herve; G Simonneau Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Nazzareno Galiè; Marius M Hoeper; Marc Humbert; Adam Torbicki; Jean-Luc Vachiery; Joan Albert Barbera; Maurice Beghetti; Paul Corris; Sean Gaine; J Simon Gibbs; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Guillaume Jondeau; Walter Klepetko; Christian Opitz; Andrew Peacock; Lewis Rubin; Michael Zellweger; Gerald Simonneau Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Edmund M T Lau; Nithin Iyer; Rahn Ilsar; Brian P Bailey; Mark R Adams; David S Celermajer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240