Limin Deng1, Ruilin Quan1, Yuanhua Yang2, Zhenwen Yang3, Hongyan Tian4, Shengqing Li5, Jieyan Shen6, Yingqun Ji7, Gangcheng Zhang8, Caojin Zhang9, Guangyi Wang10, Yuhao Liu11, Zhaozhong Cheng12, Zaixin Yu13, Zhiyuan Song14, Zeqi Zheng15, Wei Cui16, Yucheng Chen17, Shuang Liu18, Changming Xiong1, Guangliang Shan19, Jianguo He1. 1. Department of Pulmonary Vascular Disease, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China. 4. Peripheral Vascular Department of First Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China. 6. Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 7. Department of Respiratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China. 8. Department of Cardiology, Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital, Wuhan, China. 9. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. 10. Chinese PLA General Hospital, Medical School of Chinese PLA, Beijing, China. 11. Heart Center of Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Central China Fuwai Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 12. Respiratory Department, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. 13. Department of Cardiology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China. 14. Department of Cardiology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, China. 15. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China. 16. Department of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. 17. Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 18. Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 19. Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the characteristics and long-term survival of patients with CTEPH treated in three distinct ways: PEA, BPA and medical therapy. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CTEPH were included in the registry that was set up in 18 centres from August 2009 to July 2018. The characteristics and survival of patients with CTEPH receiving the different treatments were reported. Prognostic factors were evaluated by Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients with CTEPH were included. Eighty-one patients were treated with PEA, 61 with BPA and 451 with drugs. The estimated survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 8 years were, respectively, 95.2%, 84.6%, 73.4% and 66.6% in all patients; 92.6%, 89.6%, 87.5% and 80.2% in surgical patients; and 95.4%, 88.3%, 71.0% and 64.1% in medically treated patients. The estimated survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years in patients treated with BPA were 96.7%, 88.1%, 70.0% and 70.0%, respectively. For all patients, PEA was an independent predictor of survival. Other independent risk factors were CHD, cardiac index, PVR, big endothelin-1, APE and 6MWD. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicentre prospective registry reporting baseline characteristics and estimated survival of patients with CTEPH in China. The long-term survival rates are similar to those of patients in the international and Spanish registries. PEA is an independent predictor of survival.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the characteristics and long-term survival of patients with CTEPH treated in three distinct ways: PEA, BPA and medical therapy. METHODS:Patients diagnosed with CTEPH were included in the registry that was set up in 18 centres from August 2009 to July 2018. The characteristics and survival of patients with CTEPH receiving the different treatments were reported. Prognostic factors were evaluated by Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients with CTEPH were included. Eighty-one patients were treated with PEA, 61 with BPA and 451 with drugs. The estimated survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 8 years were, respectively, 95.2%, 84.6%, 73.4% and 66.6% in all patients; 92.6%, 89.6%, 87.5% and 80.2% in surgical patients; and 95.4%, 88.3%, 71.0% and 64.1% in medically treated patients. The estimated survival rates at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years in patients treated with BPA were 96.7%, 88.1%, 70.0% and 70.0%, respectively. For all patients, PEA was an independent predictor of survival. Other independent risk factors were CHD, cardiac index, PVR, big endothelin-1, APE and 6MWD. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicentre prospective registry reporting baseline characteristics and estimated survival of patients with CTEPH in China. The long-term survival rates are similar to those of patients in the international and Spanish registries. PEA is an independent predictor of survival.
Authors: John D L Brookes; Crystal Li; Sally T W Chung; Elizabeth M Brookes; Michael L Williams; Nicholas McNamara; Sofia Martin-Suarez; Antonio Loforte Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2022-03