Comparison of different treatment strategies in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a single centre real-world experience.

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension Pulmonary endarterectomy

Journal

International journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1874-1754
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8200291

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 11 03 2023
revised: 18 08 2023
accepted: 01 09 2023
pubmed: 7 9 2023
medline: 7 9 2023
entrez: 6 9 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) has been the most effective therapy for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). However, there is a substantial proportion of patients deemed not operable in whom other treatment strategies are available: medical therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA). We aimed to compare different CTEPH treatment strategies effect in a real-world setting. All patients with CTEPH referred to our centre were included. We compare the short-term clinical, functional, exercise and haemodynamic effect of medical therapy (irrespective of subsequent treatment strategies), PEA and BPA (irrespective of previous/subsequent treatment strategies); we also describe the long-term outcome of the different patient groups. We included 467 patients (39% were treated only with medical therapy, 43% underwent PEA, 13% underwent BPA and 5% were not treated with any therapy). Patients treated only with medical therapy were the oldest; compared to patients undergoing PEA, they had a lower exercise capacity, a higher risk profile and gained a lower haemodynamic, functional and survival benefit from the treatment. Patients undergoing BPA had a lower haemodynamic improvement but a comparable functional, exercise and risk improvement and a similar survival compared to patients undergoing PEA; their survival is anyway better than patients undergoing only medical treatment. Untreated historical control patients had the worst survival. We confirm the superiority of PEA compared to any alternative treatment in CTEPH patients and we observe that BPA, in patients deemed not operable or with persistent/recurrent PH after PEA, leads to a better outcome than medical therapy alone.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) has been the most effective therapy for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). However, there is a substantial proportion of patients deemed not operable in whom other treatment strategies are available: medical therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA). We aimed to compare different CTEPH treatment strategies effect in a real-world setting.
METHODS METHODS
All patients with CTEPH referred to our centre were included. We compare the short-term clinical, functional, exercise and haemodynamic effect of medical therapy (irrespective of subsequent treatment strategies), PEA and BPA (irrespective of previous/subsequent treatment strategies); we also describe the long-term outcome of the different patient groups.
RESULTS RESULTS
We included 467 patients (39% were treated only with medical therapy, 43% underwent PEA, 13% underwent BPA and 5% were not treated with any therapy). Patients treated only with medical therapy were the oldest; compared to patients undergoing PEA, they had a lower exercise capacity, a higher risk profile and gained a lower haemodynamic, functional and survival benefit from the treatment. Patients undergoing BPA had a lower haemodynamic improvement but a comparable functional, exercise and risk improvement and a similar survival compared to patients undergoing PEA; their survival is anyway better than patients undergoing only medical treatment. Untreated historical control patients had the worst survival.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We confirm the superiority of PEA compared to any alternative treatment in CTEPH patients and we observe that BPA, in patients deemed not operable or with persistent/recurrent PH after PEA, leads to a better outcome than medical therapy alone.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37673403
pii: S0167-5273(23)01289-5
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131333
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

131333

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest None.

Auteurs

Fabio Dardi (F)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: fabio.dardi@aosp.bo.it.

Mariangela Rotunno (M)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Daniele Guarino (D)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Sofia Martin Suarez (SM)

Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy; Cardiac Surgery Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy.

Fabio Niro (F)

Radiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy.

Antonio Loforte (A)

Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy; Cardiac Surgery Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy.

Nevio Taglieri (N)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Alberto Ballerini (A)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Ilenia Magnani (I)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Riccardo Bertozzi (R)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Federico Donato (F)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Giulia Martini (G)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Alessandra Manes (A)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Francesco Saia (F)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Davide Pacini (D)

Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy; Cardiac Surgery Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy.

Nazzareno Galiè (N)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Massimiliano Palazzini (M)

Cardiology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento DIMEC (Dipartimento di scienze mediche e chirurgiche), Università di Bologna, Italy.

Classifications MeSH