Ravnestad Håvard, Murbræch Klaus, Gjønnæss Eyvind, Andersen Rune, Moe Natasha, Birkeland Sigurd, Svalebjørg Morten, Lingaas Per Snorre, Gude Einar, Gullestad Lars, Kvitting John-Peder Escobar, Broch Kaspar, Andreassen Arne K
Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Heart. 2025 Jan 13;111(3):125-132. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2024-324243.
Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), while balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is an alternative for inoperable patients. We aimed to compare right ventricular (RV) remodelling and late survival after PEA and BPA.
In this prospective observational cohort study, we performed echocardiography at baseline and follow-up in patients with CTEPH treated with PEA (n=54) or BPA (n=44) between 2011 and 2022.
Follow-up echocardiography was performed at 5 months (IQR 4-7) after PEA and 3 months (IQR 2-4) after the last BPA. Both groups showed significant improvements in left ventricular end-systolic eccentricity index, RV basal diameter and RV fractional area change (RV FAC). Tricuspid regurgitation pressure decreased by 26±18 mm Hg after PEA and 13±21 mm Hg after BPA (p=0.02 for between-group difference). Tricuspid annular systolic excursion (TAPSE) decreased by 4±5 mm after PEA but increased by 1±4 mm after BPA (p<0.001). The TAPSE/systolic pulmonary artery pressure ratio improved similarly in both groups. Five-year survival was 96% (95% CI 86% to 99%) for PEA and 79% (95% CI 61% to 89%) for BPA (p=0.25). Change in RV FAC was an independent predictor of survival (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, p=0.03).
Both PEA and BPA led to significant RV reverse remodelling, with no clear evidence of a difference in survival rates. Improvement in RV function, particularly RV FAC, was associated with better outcomes, highlighting the importance of RV recovery in CTEPH treatment.
肺动脉内膜剥脱术(PEA)是慢性血栓栓塞性肺动脉高压(CTEPH)的首选治疗方法,而球囊肺动脉血管成形术(BPA)是无法进行手术的患者的替代治疗方法。我们旨在比较PEA和BPA术后右心室(RV)重塑和晚期生存率。
在这项前瞻性观察性队列研究中,我们对2011年至2022年间接受PEA(n=54)或BPA(n=44)治疗的CTEPH患者在基线和随访时进行了超声心动图检查。
在PEA术后5个月(四分位间距4 - 7个月)和最后一次BPA术后3个月(四分位间距2 - 4个月)进行了随访超声心动图检查。两组患者的左心室收缩末期偏心指数、右心室基底直径和右心室面积变化分数(RV FAC)均有显著改善。PEA术后三尖瓣反流压力降低26±18 mmHg,BPA术后降低13±21 mmHg(组间差异p=0.02)。PEA术后三尖瓣环收缩期位移(TAPSE)降低4±5 mm,而BPA术后增加1±4 mm(p<0.001)。两组患者的TAPSE/收缩期肺动脉压比值改善情况相似。PEA组的五年生存率为96%(95%置信区间86%至99%),BPA组为79%(95%置信区间61%至89%)(p=0.25)。RV FAC的变化是生存的独立预测因素(风险比0.9,95%置信区间0.82至0.99,p=0.03)。
PEA和BPA均导致显著的右心室逆向重塑,没有明确证据表明生存率存在差异。右心室功能的改善,特别是RV FAC的改善,与更好的预后相关,突出了右心室恢复在CTEPH治疗中的重要性。