Park Da-Hee, Fuge Jan, Kamp Jan Christopher, Harrigfeld Britta, Berliner Dominik, Hoeper Marius M, Olsson Karen M
Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover (BREATH), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), 30625 Hannover, Germany.
J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 13;13(24):7582. doi: 10.3390/jcm13247582.
: The current classification of pulmonary hypertension (PH) distinguishes between pre-capillary (PAWP ≤ 15 mmHg) and post-capillary (PAWP > 15 mmHg) forms, with left heart disease, especially heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), being a common cause of PH. We investigated the suitability of an HFpEF diagnosis instead of PAWP in diagnosing PH associated with HFpEF. : In a retrospective, single-center analysis, we reviewed diagnoses from our database, focusing on patients initially diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) or PH associated with HFpEF (PH-HFpEF) based on their PAWP. These patients were reclassified, distinguishing between HFpEF and non-HFpEF cases. Patients with PH-HFpEF were further stratified by PAWP (≤15 mmHg or >15 mmHg). : The study included 350 patients: 214 (61.1%) with PAWP ≤ 15 mmHg and 136 (38.9%) with PAWP > 15 mmHg. Replacing the PAWP criterion with the HFpEF criterion resulted in the reclassification of 121 of 350 (34.6%) patients (115 of 214 [53.7%] from IPAH to PH-HFpEF and 6 of 136 [4.4%] from PH-HFpEF to IPAH). The final disposition was IPAH (n = 105, 30%), PH-HFpEF with PAWP ≤ 15 mmHg (n = 115, 32.9%), and PH-HFpEF with PAWP > 15 mmHg (n = 130, 37.1%). Characteristics such as age distribution, functional impairment, co-morbidities, echocardiographic indices of HFpEF, pulmonary vascular resistance, response to PH medications, and unadjusted survival were comparable between the two HFpEF cohorts but differed substantially from those with IPAH. : PH-HFpEF patients with PAWP ≤ 15 mmHg resemble those with PAWP > 15 mmHg but differ from IPAH cases. Incorporating non-invasive HFpEF criteria could refine PH diagnostic classification.
目前肺动脉高压(PH)的分类区分了毛细血管前(肺动脉楔压≤15mmHg)和毛细血管后(肺动脉楔压>15mmHg)形式,左心疾病,尤其是射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF),是PH的常见病因。我们研究了用HFpEF诊断取代肺动脉楔压在诊断与HFpEF相关的PH中的适用性。
在一项回顾性单中心分析中,我们审查了数据库中的诊断结果,重点关注最初根据肺动脉楔压诊断为特发性肺动脉高压(IPAH)或与HFpEF相关的PH(PH-HFpEF)的患者。这些患者被重新分类,区分HFpEF和非HFpEF病例。PH-HFpEF患者进一步按肺动脉楔压分层(≤15mmHg或>15mmHg)。
该研究纳入了350例患者:214例(61.1%)肺动脉楔压≤15mmHg,136例(38.9%)肺动脉楔压>15mmHg。用HFpEF标准取代肺动脉楔压标准导致350例患者中的121例(34.6%)重新分类(214例中的115例[53.7%]从IPAH重新分类为PH-HFpEF,136例中的6例[4.4%]从PH-HFpEF重新分类为IPAH)。最终分类为IPAH(n = 105,30%)、肺动脉楔压≤15mmHg的PH-HFpEF(n = 115,32.9%)和肺动脉楔压>15mmHg的PH-HFpEF(n = 130,37.1%)。两个HFpEF队列之间在年龄分布、功能损害、合并症、HFpEF的超声心动图指标、肺血管阻力、对PH药物的反应和未调整的生存率等特征方面具有可比性,但与IPAH患者有很大差异。
肺动脉楔压≤15mmHg的PH-HFpEF患者与肺动脉楔压>15mmHg的患者相似,但与IPAH病例不同。纳入非侵入性HFpEF标准可以完善PH诊断分类。