Search

Background: Dissecting the determinants of functional capacity during long-term follow-up after acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can help to better characterize a patient population with persisting limitation., Methods: In a prospective cohort study, consecutive unselected survivors of acute PE underwent 3- and 12-month follow-up, including six-minute walking distance (6MWD) and dyspnea assessment with the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale. We used reference equations adjusting for age, sex, and anthropometric measurements to define abnormal 6MWD., Results: Overall, 323 of 363 (89.0%) patients had at least one recorded 6MWD value at one year. At 3 months, the prevalence of abnormal 6MWD was 21.9% and at 12 months it was 18.3%. At 3 and 12 months, 58.8% and 52.1% with abnormal 6MWD did not report dyspnea, respectively. On average and during follow-up, 6MWD significantly improved with time, while the mMRC dyspnea scale did not. Abnormal 6MWD was associated with younger age (odds ratio per decade, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94), higher body mass index (1.10; 1.03-1.17), smoking (3.53; 1.34-9.31), intermediate- or high-risk PE (3.21; 1.21-8.56), and higher mMRC grading (2.28; 1.59-3.27). Abnormal 6MWD at 3 months was associated with the prospectively defined endpoint of post-PE impairment (3.72; 1.50-9.28) and with poor disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life., Conclusion: Three months after PE, 37% of patients reported dyspnea and 22% had abnormal 6MWD. After a year, 20% still had abnormal 6MWD. Dyspnea correlated with abnormal 6MWD, but over 50% of patients with abnormal 6MWD did not report dyspnea. Abnormal 6MWD predicted subsequent post-pulmonary embolism impairment and worse long-term quality of life., Clinical Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register Identifier DRKS00005939., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests I.T.F. reports no conflicts of interest. L.V. reports no conflicts of interest. S.B. reports grants or contracts from Bayer, INARI, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bard, SANOFI, and Concept Medical; consulting fees from INARI; payment or honoraria from INARI, Boston Scientific, and Concept Medical; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. K.C.C. reports no conflicts of interest. R.E. reports lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, United Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT, Janssen-Cilag, and consulting fees from BetaPharm, OMT, Lungpacer Medical. G.G. reports personal lecture/advisory fees from Bayer HealthCare, Pfizer and LeoPharma. M.H. reports honoraria for lectures and advisory board activities from Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer, Santis. L.H. reports consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. K.K. reports no conflicts of interest. H.W. reports lecture and consulting fees from Actelion/Janssen, GSK, Bayer HealthCare, Daiichi Sanchyo, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Roche. S.R. reports grants or contracts from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis; consulting fees from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor; payment or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Ferrer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor. S.V.K. reports grants or contracts from Bayer AG; consulting fees from Bayer AG, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boston Scientific; and payment or honoraria from Bayer AG, MSD, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (CTEPD) is an important late complication of acute pulmonary embolism, in which the thrombi transform into fibrous tissue, become integrated into the vessel wall, and lead to chronic obstructions. CTEPD is differentiated into cases without pulmonary hypertension (PH), characterized by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure up to 20 mmHg and a form with PH. Then, it is still referred to as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).When there is suspicion of CTEPH, initial diagnostic tests should include echocardiography and ventilation/perfusion scan to detect perfusion defects. Subsequently, referral to a CTEPH center is recommended, where further imaging diagnostics and right heart catheterization are performed to determine the appropriate treatment.Currently, three treatment modalities are available. The treatment of choice is pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). For non-operable patients or patients with residual PH after PEA, PH-targeted medical therapy, and the interventional procedure of balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) are available. Increasingly, PEA, BPA, and pharmacological therapy are combined in multimodal concepts.Patients require post-treatment follow-up, preferably at (CTE)PH centers. These centers are required to perform a minimum number of PEA surgeries (50/year) and BPA interventions (100/year)., Competing Interests: S.G. erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, MSD.M. Halank erhielt Honorare für Vorträge von AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag und MSD, Honorare für Beratungen im Rahmen von AdBoards von Janssen-Cilag und MSD und finanzielle Unterstützung für die Teilnahme an Kongressen von Janssen-Cilag.M. Held erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer, Santis.L.H. erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Johnson&Johnson,MSD, INARI und Boston Scientific.S.K. erhielt institutionelle Zuschüsse und Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Bayer AG, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boston Scientific; institutionelle Zuschüsse von Inari Medical; und Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer.E.M. erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, MSD.A.O. erhielt Rednerhonorare und Kongressreiseunterstützung von AOP, CSL Behring, Berlin Chemie, Novartis, Pfizer.H.-J. Schäfers hat keinen Interessenkonflikt.H.-J. Seyfarth erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare Janssen.H.W. erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sanchyo, Ferrer, GSK, Janssen, MSD und Roche.C.B.W. erhielt Redner- und/oder Beraterhonorare von Actelion, AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG, Bayer AG, BTG, MSD und Pfizer., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) may provide prognostically valuable information during follow-up after pulmonary embolism (PE). Our objective was to investigate the association of patterns and degree of exercise limitation, as assessed by CPET, with clinical, echocardiographic and laboratory abnormalities and quality of life (QoL) after PE., Methods: In a prospective cohort study of unselected consecutive all-comers with PE, survivors of the index acute event underwent 3- and 12-month follow-ups, including CPET. We defined cardiopulmonary limitation as ventilatory inefficiency or insufficient cardiocirculatory reserve. Deconditioning was defined as peak O 2 uptake ( V ' O 2 ) <80% with no other abnormality., Results: Overall, 396 patients were included. At 3 months, prevalence of cardiopulmonary limitation and deconditioning was 50.1% (34.7% mild/moderate; 15.4% severe) and 12.1%, respectively; at 12 months, it was 44.8% (29.1% mild/moderate; 15.7% severe) and 14.9%, respectively. Cardiopulmonary limitation and its severity were associated with age (OR per decade 2.05, 95% CI 1.65-2.55), history of chronic lung disease (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.06-6.97), smoking (OR 5.87, 95% CI 2.44-14.15) and intermediate- or high-risk acute PE (OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.92-9.94). Severe cardiopulmonary limitation at 3 months was associated with the prospectively defined, combined clinical-haemodynamic end-point of "post-PE impairment" (OR 6.40, 95% CI 2.35-18.45) and with poor disease-specific and generic health-related QoL., Conclusions: Abnormal exercise capacity of cardiopulmonary origin is frequent after PE, being associated with clinical and haemodynamic impairment as well as long-term QoL reduction. CPET can be considered for selected patients with persisting symptoms after acute PE to identify candidates for closer follow-up and possible therapeutic interventions., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: S. Barco reports grants or contracts from Bayer, INARI, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bard, Sanofi and Concept Medical, consulting fees from INARI, payment or honoraria from INARI, Boston Scientific and Concept Medical, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. R. Ewert reports lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, United Therapeutics, AstraZeneca and Berlin-Chemie, research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT and Janssen-Cilag, and consulting fees from BetaPharm, OMT and Lungpacer Medical. G. Giannakoulas reports personal lecture/advisory fees from Bayer HealthCare, Pfizer and LeoPharma. L. Hobohm reports consulting fees and lecture honoraria from MSD and Janssen. S. Rosenkranz reports grants or contracts from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen and Novartis, consulting fees from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics and Vifor, and payment or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics and Vifor. T.A. Morris reports research funding from INARI. S.V. Konstantinides reports grants or contracts from Bayer AG, consulting fees from Bayer AG, Daiichi Sankyo and Boston Scientific, and payment or honoraria from Bayer AG, INARI Medical, MSD, Pfizer and BMS. M. Held reports honoraria for lectures and advisory board activities from AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer and Santis. D. Dumitrescu reports honoraria for lectures or consulting fees from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, Servier and Vifor. The remaining authors disclose no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: The influence of the new pulmonary hypertension (PH) definition on the incidence of chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH) is unclear. The incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease without PH (CTEPD) is unknown., Objectives: To determine the frequency of CTEPH and CTEPD using the new mPAP cut-off >20 mmHg for PH in patients who have suffered an incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and were recruited into an aftercare program., Methods: In a prospective two-year observational study based on telephone calls, echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise tests, patients with findings suspicious for PH received an invasive work-up. Data from right heart catheterization were used to identify patients with or without CTEPH/CTEPD., Results: Two years after acute PE (n = 400) we found an incidence of 5.25% for CTEPH (n = 21) and 5.75% for CTEPD (n = 23) according to the new mPAP threshold >20 mmHg. Five of 21 patients with CTEPH and 13 of 23 patients with CTEPD showed no signs of PH in echocardiography. CTEPH and CTEPD subjects showed a reduced VO₂ peak and work rate in cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). The capillary end-tidal CO 2 gradient was comparably elevated in CTEPH and CTEPD, but it was normal in the Non-CTEPD-Non-PH group. According to the PH definition provided by the former guidelines, only 17 (4.25%) patients have been diagnosed with CTEPH and 27 individuals (6.75%) were classified having CTEPD., Conclusions: Using mPAP >20 mmHg for diagnosis of CTEPH leads to an increase of 23.5% of CTEPH diagnosis. CPET may help to detect CTEPD and CTEPH., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Matthias Held reports fees for consultation and/or lectures from Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer, Santis. Elena Pfeuffer-Jovic reports fees for lectures from Janssen and for travel/accommodation from Boehringer Ingelheim, and OMT, outside the submitted work. Heinrike Wilkens has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GSK, Janssen and Roche. Gülmisal Güder has no conflicts of interest. Franziska Küsters has no conflicts of interest. Hans Joachim Schäfers has no conflicts of interest. Heinz Jakob Langen has no conflicts of interest. Danjouma Cheufou has no conflicts of interest. Delia Schmitt has no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To systematically assess late outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and to investigate the clinical implications of post-PE impairment (PPEI) fulfilling prospectively defined criteria., Methods and Results: A prospective multicentre observational cohort study was conducted in 17 large-volume centres across Germany. Adult consecutive patients with confirmed acute symptomatic PE were followed with a standardized assessment plan and pre-defined visits at 3, 12, and 24 months. The co-primary outcomes were (i) diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), and (ii) PPEI, a combination of persistent or worsening clinical, functional, biochemical, and imaging parameters during follow-up. A total of 1017 patients (45% women, median age 64 years) were included in the primary analysis. They were followed for a median duration of 732 days after PE diagnosis. The CTEPH was diagnosed in 16 (1.6%) patients, after a median of 129 days; the estimated 2-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% (1.2-4.4%). Overall, 880 patients were evaluable for PPEI; the 2-year cumulative incidence was 16.0% (95% confidence interval 12.8-20.8%). The PPEI helped to identify 15 of the 16 patients diagnosed with CTEPH during follow-up (hazard ratio for CTEPH vs. no CTEPH 393; 95% confidence interval 73-2119). Patients with PPEI had a higher risk of re-hospitalization and death as well as worse quality of life compared with those without PPEI., Conclusion: In this prospective study, the cumulative 2-year incidence of CTEPH was 2.3%, but PPEI diagnosed by standardized criteria was frequent. Our findings support systematic follow-up of patients after acute PE and may help to optimize guideline recommendations and algorithms for post-PE care., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.C.M. was supported by a research grant from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD; 57440918). S.B. reports grants or contracts from Bayer, INARI, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bard, SANOFI, and Concept Medical; consulting fees from INARI; payment or honoraria from INARI, Boston Scientific, and Concept Medical; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. R.E. reports consulting fees from Actelion Germany, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, AstraZeneca, OMT, and LungPacer; payment or honoraria from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, OMT, Berlin Chemie, and Novartis; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, OMT, Berlin Chemie, and Novartis; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Berlin Chemie. M.F. reports payment or honoraria and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Janssen. F.G. reports grants or contracts from Janssen, Bayer; consulting fees from Bayer & Janssen and AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria from Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and MSD; payment for expert testimony from Janssen; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Janssen. H.-A.G. reports grants or contracts from Actelion/Janssen and Bayer; consulting fees from Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, MSD, Accelleron, MorphogenIX, and Gossamer Bio; payment or honoraria from Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, MSD, and Gossamer Bio; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, and MSD. A.G. reports payment or honoraria from Bayer Vital, Roche, MSD, and Boehringer-Ingelheim; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer Vital. E.G. reports consulting fees from Actelion, Bayer/MSD, GSK, United Therapeutics, Novartis, REATA, OMT, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer/MSD, and GSK; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, Janssen and Bayer; and leadership or fiduciary role for Actelion/Janssen. M.Ha. reports consulting fees from MSD; payment or honoraria from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Janssen-Cilag, and MSD; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Acceleron, Actelion, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, and MSD. M.He. reports consulting fees from Actelion, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, and Pfuter Santis; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen. L.H. reports payment or honoraria from Actelion and MSD. M.M.H. reports consulting fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer; and payment or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer. F.A.K. reports grants or contracts from Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Actelion. M.L. reports grants or contracts from Thermo Fisher Scientific, payment or honoraria from Actelion/Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart Germany; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion/Johnson & Johnson and Bayer; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Thermo Fisher Scientific. H.H.L. reports travel fees for the study by Bayer, Germany, consulting fees, payment or honoraria, and payment for expert testimony from MSD, Germany; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for MSD, Germany. E.M. reports payment or honoraria from Actelion/Janssen, MSD, and Bayer; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion/Janssen, MSD, and Bayer; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Actelion/Janssen. H.-J.S. reports payment or honoraria from Janssen/Actelion, Bayer, GSK, and MSD; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Janssen. R.W. reports grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic; and payment or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, CVRx, Daichii Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Sanofi, Servier, and SOBI. H.W. reports payment or honoraria from Actelion/Janssen, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Actelion and Boehringer Ingelheim; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Actelion/Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and MSD. P.S.W. reports study grants from Bayer AG, grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim, DiaSorin, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Bayer Vital, Daiichy Sankyo Europe, and Novartis Pharma; payment or honoraria from Bayer Health Care, Pfizer Pharma, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and other non-financial support from Philips Medical Systems, DiaSorin, and IEM. S.V.K. reports grants or contracts from Bayer AG; consulting fees from Bayer AG, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boston Scientific; and payment or honoraria from Bayer AG, INARI Medical, MSD, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.R. reports grants or contracts from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis; consulting fees from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor; payment or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Ferrer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor. The remaining authors (A.C.M., C.A., D.B., L.B., D.F., N.M., F.J.M., C.N., C.O., and K.-H.S.) declare no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: Some patients present with excessive pulmonary hypertension (PH) prior to pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). This study was performed to evaluate the clinical role of pretreatment before PEA in CTEPH patients., Methods: A total of 370 patients with CTEPH undergoing first PEA between 2003 and 2017 were divided into those receiving pretreatment with bosentan (group B: n = 119) and those without targeted pretreatment for PH (group C: n = 251). After selecting patients given bosentan (2-8 months) and using propensity score matching, comparable patient cohorts (n = 23 each) were created from both groups. PEA was performed in the standard manner, and the median number of extracted segments was 14., Results: There were no significant differences in perioperative demographic characteristics or 30-day mortality (overall 5.7%) between the groups before and after matching. In patients with preoperative pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) ≥800 dynes s/cm5, a significantly larger decrease in PVR was found in group B (78%) compared to group C (68%) (P = 0.033). There was no significant difference in late survival between the groups after matching. The frequency of residual/persistent PH (mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mmHg) was lower in group B than in group C, although the difference was not significant (22% vs 39%, respectively, P = 0.200). Advanced age and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time were independent predictors of both 30-day mortality and residual/persistent PH (odds ratio: age, 1.053, 1.013, cardiopulmonary bypass time, 1.065, 1.010, respectively)., Conclusions: Preoperative treatment of CTEPH patients with bosentan for 2-8 months can improve post-PEA PVR without adverse clinical events in patients with a high preoperative PVR. A temporary bridging regime appears beneficial in selected patients prior to PEA., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data are available on the long-term course and predictors of quality of life (QoL) following acute pulmonary embolism (PE)., Research Question: What are the kinetics and determinants of disease-specific and generic health-related QoL 3 and 12 months following an acute PE?, Study Design and Methods: The Follow-up after Acute Pulmonary Embolism (FOCUS) study prospectively followed up consecutive adult patients with objectively diagnosed PE. Patients were considered for study who completed the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire at predefined visits 3 and 12 months following PE. The course of disease-specific QoL as assessed using the PEmb-QoL and the impact of baseline characteristics using multivariable mixed effects linear regression were studied; also assessed was the course of generic QoL as evaluated by using the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 5-Level utility index and the EuroQoL Visual Analog Scale., Results: In 620 patients (44% women; median age, 62 years), overall disease-specific QoL improved from 3 to 12 months, with a decrease in the median PEmb-QoL score from 19.4% to 13.0% and a mean individual change of -4.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to -5.5). Female sex, cardiopulmonary disease, and higher BMI were associated with worse QoL at both 3 and 12 months. Over time, the association with BMI became weaker, whereas older age and previous VTE were associated with worsening QoL. Generic QoL also improved: the mean ± SD EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 5-Level utility index increased from 0.85 ± 0.22 to 0.87 ± 0.20 and the visual analog scale from 72.9 ± 18.8 to 74.4 ± 19.1., Interpretation: In a large cohort of survivors of acute PE, the change of QoL was quantified between months 3 and 12 following diagnosis, and factors independently associated with lower QoL and slower recovery of QoL were identified. This information may facilitate the planning and interpretation of clinical trials assessing QoL and help guide patient management., Clinical Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien: www.drks.de); No.: DRKS00005939., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Early discharge of patients with acute low-risk pulmonary embolism requires validation by prospective trials with clinical and quality-of-life outcomes., Methods: The multinational Home Treatment of Patients with Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism with the Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor Rivaroxaban (HoT-PE) single-arm management trial investigated early discharge followed by ambulatory treatment with rivaroxaban. The study was stopped for efficacy after the positive results of the predefined interim analysis at 50% of the planned population. The present analysis includes the entire trial population (576 patients). In addition to 3-month recurrence (primary outcome) and 1-year overall mortality, we analysed self-reported disease-specific (Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire) and generic (five-level five-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) scale) quality of life as well as treatment satisfaction (Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS)) after pulmonary embolism., Results: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in three (0.5%, one-sided upper 95% CI 1.3%) patients. The 1-year mortality was 2.4%. The mean±sd PEmb-QoL decreased from 28.9±20.6% at 3 weeks to 19.9±15.4% at 3 months, a mean change (improvement) of -9.1% (p<0.0001). Improvement was consistent across all PEmb-QoL dimensions. The EQ-5D-5L was 0.89±0.12 at 3 weeks after enrolment and improved to 0.91±0.12 at 3 months (p<0.0001). Female sex and cardiopulmonary disease were associated with poorer disease-specific and generic quality of life; older age was associated with faster worsening of generic quality of life. The ACTS burden score improved from 40.5±6.6 points at 3 weeks to 42.5±5.9 points at 3 months (p<0.0001)., Conclusions: Our results further support early discharge and ambulatory oral anticoagulation for selected patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism. Targeted strategies may be necessary to further improve quality of life in specific patient subgroups., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S. Barco reports personal fees from Biocompatibles Group UK, LEO Pharma, Bayer, nonfinancial support from Bayer HealthCare and Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I. Schmidtmann reports grants from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: W. Ageno reports grants from Bayer, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: T. Anušić has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R.M. Bauersachs reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from Bayer HealthCare, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer and Daiichi Sankyo, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: C. Becattini reports personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Bayer HealthCare, Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Bernardi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Beyer-Westendorf reports patient fees from the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (CTH), University Medical Center Mainz, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees for advisory board work, lectures and travel support from Bayer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Bonacchini has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Brachmann reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic, during the conduct of the study; grants from Medtronic, St Jude and Biotronik, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Christ reports grants from the University of Mainz, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: M. Czihal reports personal fees from Bayer HealthCare, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD Sharp & Dohme and LEO Pharma, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Duerschmied reports personal fees for lectures and nonfinancial support (travel costs) from Bayer, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo and CytoSorbents, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K. Empen reports travel costs and personal fees for lectures from Bayer HealthCare, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Espinola-Klein reports lecture fees from Bayer HealthCare, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.H. Ficker reports personal fees for lectures from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Fonseca reports personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Bayer, outside the submitted work Conflict of interest: S. Genth-Zotz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Jiménez has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V-P. Harjola reports personal fees for lectures from Bayer, personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer, personal fees for advisory board work from MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Held reports honoraria for advisory board work from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo and Roche, honoraria for lectures from Actelion, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Daichi Sankyo, Pfizer and OMT, grants from Actelion, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Iogna Prat has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T.J. Lange reports nonfinancial support for meeting attendance from the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (CTH), University Medical Center Mainz, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Lankeit reports personal fees for lectures and nonfinancial support (travel costs) from Actelion, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees for lectures from MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, grants from BRAHMS – Thermo Fisher Scientific, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Manolis has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Meyer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Münzel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Mustonen reports personal fees for lectures and advisory board work from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Sanofi-Anetis, LEO Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: U. Rauch-Kroehnert reports grants from Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Interdisziplinäres Zentrum Klinische Studien (IZKS) during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bayer Vital, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Ruiz-Artacho reports personal fees from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Pfizer, LEO Pharma and Rovi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Schellong reports personal fees for lectures and consultancy from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo and Aspen, grants and personal fees for lectures and consultancy from Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Schwaiblmair has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Stahrenberg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Valerio has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P.E. Westerweel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P.S. Wild reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer Vital and Bayer HealthCare, grants from Philips Medical Systems and Daiichi Sankyo Europe, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and equipment provision from DiaSorin, equipment provision from IEM, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S.V. Konstantinides reports grants and provision of study drug from Bayer, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Biocompatibles Group UK and MSD, personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Bayer and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, grants and personal fees for lectures from Actelion, grants from Servier, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2021.)

Aims: To investigate the efficacy and safety of early transition from hospital to ambulatory treatment in low-risk acute PE, using the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban., Methods and Results: We conducted a prospective multicentre single-arm investigator initiated and academically sponsored management trial in patients with acute low-risk PE (EudraCT Identifier 2013-001657-28). Eligibility criteria included absence of (i) haemodynamic instability, (ii) right ventricular dysfunction or intracardiac thrombi, and (iii) serious comorbidities. Up to two nights of hospital stay were permitted. Rivaroxaban was given at the approved dose for PE for ≥3 months. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) or PE-related death within 3 months of enrolment. An interim analysis was planned after the first 525 patients, with prespecified early termination of the study if the null hypothesis could be rejected at the level of α = 0.004 (<6 primary outcome events). From May 2014 through June 2018, consecutive patients were enrolled in seven countries. Of the 525 patients included in the interim analysis, three (0.6%; one-sided upper 99.6% confidence interval 2.1%) suffered symptomatic non-fatal VTE recurrence, a number sufficiently low to fulfil the condition for early termination of the trial. Major bleeding occurred in 6 (1.2%) of the 519 patients comprising the safety population. There were two cancer-related deaths (0.4%)., Conclusion: Early discharge and home treatment with rivaroxaban is effective and safe in carefully selected patients with acute low-risk PE. The results of the present trial support the selection of appropriate patients for ambulatory treatment of PE., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a subgroup of pulmonary hypertension that differs from all other forms of PH in terms of its pathophysiology, patient characteristics and treatment. For implementation of the European Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension in Germany, the Cologne Consensus Conference 2016 was held and last updated in spring of 2018. One of the working groups was dedicated to CTEPH, practical and controversial issues were commented and updated. In every patient with suspected PH, CTEPH or chronic thromboembolic disease (CTED, i.e. symptomatic residual vasculopathy without pulmonary hypertension) should be excluded. Primary treatment is surgical pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) in a multidisciplinary CTEPH centre. Inoperable patients or patients with persistent or recurrent CTEPH after PEA are candidates for targeted drug therapy. There is increasing experience with balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) for inoperable patients; this option, like PEA, is reserved for specialised centres with expertise in this treatment method., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Abbreviated versions of the risk stratification strategy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) pulmonary hypertension guidelines have been recently validated in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. We aimed to investigate their prognostic value in medically treated chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) patients from the COMPERA registry, which collects six variables of interest (World Health Organization Functional Class, 6-min walk distance, brain natriuretic peptide, right atrial pressure, cardiac index and mixed venous oxygen saturation).We included patients with at least one follow-up visit, no pulmonary endarterectomy and at least three of the six variables available, and classified the patients into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups. As a secondary analysis, the number of noninvasive low-risk criteria was counted. The association between risk assessment and survival was evaluated.Data from inclusion and follow-up (median 7 months) visits were available for 561 and 231 patients, respectively. Baseline 1- and 5-year survival estimates were significantly different (p<0.0001) in the baseline low-risk (98.6% and 88.3%, respectively), intermediate-risk (94.9% and 61.8%, respectively) and high-risk (75.5% and 32.9%, respectively) cohorts. Follow-up data were even more discriminative, with 100%, 92% and 69% 1-year survival, respectively. The number of low-risk noninvasive criteria was also associated with survival.These analyses suggest that the ESC/ERS risk assessment may be applicable in patients with medically treated CTEPH., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M. Delcroix reports research grants, investigator, speaker and consultant fees from Actelion, investigator, speaker and consultant fees from Bayer and GSK, speaker and consultant fees from MSD, investigator fees from Reata and Eli Lilly, and investigator and consultant fees from Bellerophon, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G. Staehler has received speaker's honoraria from Bayer and Actelion, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: H. Gall reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer and United Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: E. Grünig reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, Bayer/MSD, grants from GSK, grants from United Therapeutics, grants from Novartis, grants from Actelion, Bayer and MSD, personal fees from SCOPE, OrPha Swiss GmbH and Zurich Heart House, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Held reports research grants and other from Actelion, honoraria for lectures from Actelion, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer, participation in clinical trials for Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer and United Therapeutics, and honoraria for advisory board work from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer, GSK and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Halank reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis and OMT, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Klose reports grants and personal fees from Bayer and Actelion, and personal fees from GSK, United Therapeutics and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Vonk-Noordegraaf reports grants from NWO-VICI, speaker fees from Actelion and consultation fees from Arena, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Rosenkranz reports grants and personal fees for speaking/consulting from Actelion, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis and United Therapeutics, personal fees for speaking/consulting from GSK, Gilead and MSD, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: J. Pepke-Zaba reports grants (compensation for data entry) from the COMPERA registry during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Actelion, Bayer and Merck, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C.F. Opitz reports other from Actelion, Bayer and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.S.R. Gibbs reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK and MSD, personal fees from Arena, Bellerophon and Pfizer, and grants from United Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: T.J. Lange reports grants (compensation for data entry) from the COMPERA registry, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Actelion, Bayer, GSK and Pfizer, personal fees and nonfinancial support from AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals and MSD, and grants and personal fees from United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I. Tsangaris reports grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Actelion, GSK and Bayer, and personal fees and nonfinancial support from MSD and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Huscher reports personal fees from Actelion, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Pittrow reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Aspen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K.M. Olsson reports personal fees for lectures from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.M. Hoeper reports personal fees for lectures and consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD and Pfizer, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) may, depending on the method and cut-off values used for definition, account for up to 60% of all patients with PE and have an 8% or higher risk of short-term adverse outcome. Although four non-vitamin K-dependent direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, their safety and efficacy as well as the optimal anticoagulation regimen using these drugs have not been systematically investigated in intermediate-risk PE. Moreover, it remains unknown how many patients with intermediate-high-risk and intermediate-low-risk PE were included in most of the phase III NOAC trials. The ongoing Pulmonary Embolism International Thrombolysis 2 (PEITHO-2) study is a prospective, multicentre, multinational, single-arm trial investigating whether treatment of acute intermediate-risk PE with parenteral heparin anticoagulation over the first 72 hours, followed by the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran over 6 months, is effective and safe. The primary efficacy outcome is recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism or death related to PE within the first 6 months. The primary safety outcome is major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, the overall duration of hospital stay (index event and repeated hospitalizations) and the temporal pattern of recovery of right ventricular function over the 6-month follow-up period. By applying and evaluating a contemporary risk-tailored treatment strategy for acute PE, PEITHO-2 will implement the recommendations of current guidelines and contribute to their further evolution., Competing Interests: Financial Support: PEITHO-2 is an independent, investigator-initiated trial. The study has an academic sponsor (University Medical Center Mainz, Germany) and is supported by public funding. In addition, the sponsor has obtained the study drug (dabigatran) and a grant from the market authorization holder of dabigatran, Boehringer Ingelheim. The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of the PEITHO-2 trial study, for all study analyses and for the drafting and editing of reports and publications and their final contents.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is the only potentially curable form of pulmonary hypertension. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is pivotal for successful treatment. Clinical signs and symptoms can be nonspecific and risk factors such as history of venous thromboembolism may not always be present. Echocardiography is the recommended first diagnostic step. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is a complementary tool that can help to identify patients with milder abnormalities and chronic thromboembolic disease, triggering the need for further investigation. Ventilation/perfusion ( V '/ Q ') scintigraphy is the imaging methodology of choice to exclude CTEPH. Single photon emission computed tomography V '/ Q ' is gaining popularity over planar imaging. Assessment of pulmonary haemodynamics by right heart catheterisation is mandatory, although there is increasing interest in noninvasive haemodynamic evaluation. Despite the status of digital subtraction angiography as the gold standard, techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging are increasingly used for characterising the pulmonary vasculature and assessment of operability. Promising new tools include dual-energy CT, combination of rotational angiography and cone beam CT, and positron emission tomography. These innovative procedures not only minimise misdiagnosis, but also provide additional vascular information relevant to treatment planning. Further research is needed to determine how these modalities will fit into the diagnostic algorithm for CTEPH., (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent cause of death and serious disability. The risk of PE-associated mortality and morbidity extends far beyond the acute phase of the disease. In earlier follow-up studies, as many as 30 % of the patients died during a follow-up period of up to 3 years, and up to 50 % of patients continued to complain of dyspnea and/or poor physical performance 6 months to 3 years after the index event. The most feared 'late sequela' of PE is chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), the true incidence of which remains obscure due to the large margin of error in the rates reported by mostly small, single-center studies. Moreover, the functional and hemodynamic changes corresponding to early, possibly reversible stages of CTEPH, have not been systematically investigated. The ongoing Follow-Up after acute pulmonary embolism (FOCUS) study will prospectively enroll and systematically follow, over a 2-year period and with a standardized comprehensive program of clinical, echocardiographic, functional and laboratory testing, a large multicenter prospective cohort of 1000 unselected patients (all-comers) with acute symptomatic PE. FOCUS will possess adequate power to provide answers to relevant remaining questions regarding the patients' long-term morbidity and mortality, and the temporal pattern of post-PE abnormalities. It will hopefully provide evidence for future guideline recommendations regarding the selection of patients for long-term follow-up after PE, the modalities which this follow-up should include, and the findings that should be interpreted as indicating progressive functional and hemodynamic post-PE impairment, or the development of CTEPH.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening acute cardiovascular syndrome. However, more than 95 % of patients are haemodynamically stable at presentation, and among them are patients at truly low risk who may qualify for immediate or early discharge. The Home Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism (HoT-PE) study is a prospective international multicentre single-arm phase 4 management (cohort) trial aiming to determine whether home treatment of acute low-risk PE with the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban is feasible, effective, and safe. Patients with confirmed PE, who have no right ventricular dysfunction or free floating thrombi in the right atrium or ventricle, are eligible if they meet none of the exclusion criteria indicating haemodynamic instability, serious comorbidity or any condition mandating hospitalisation, or a familial/social environment unable to support home treatment. The first dose of rivaroxaban is given in hospital, and patients are discharged within 48 hours of presentation. Rivaroxaban is taken for at least three months. The primary outcome is symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism or PE-related death within three months of enrolment. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and patient satisfaction, and health care resource utilisation compared to existing data on standard-duration hospital treatment. HoT-PE is planned to analyse 1,050 enrolled patients, providing 80 % power to reject the null hypothesis that the recurrence rate of venous thromboembolism is >3 % with α≤0.05. If the hypothesis of HoT-PE is confirmed, early discharge and out-of-hospital treatment may become an attractive, potentially cost-saving option for a significant proportion of patients with acute PE.

Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) can potentially be cured by pulmonary thrombendarterectomy (PEA), the criteria for differentiation between operable and non-operable patients are not standardized., Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the value of rigidly registered computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and single photon emission CT (SPECT) in differentiating for PEA., Material and Methods: Forty-nine patients with CTEPH (21 men; age, 58 ± 13 years) were evaluated by an interdisciplinary expert board using all available diagnostic information and their consensus statement as gold standard. For SPECT a lobe based perfusion score was visually assessed using the score of 0 (lack of perfusion) to 1 (normal perfusion) calculating percentage of vascular obstruction (PVO). By CTPA, vascular obstruction index (OI) of central, peripheral, and global PA-bed were determined. The accuracy of the alignment between CTPA and SPECT was determined by fusion score (FS) ranging from 1 (no alignment) to 5 (exact alignment). Angiography provided PA pressure (PAP), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), and PA wedge pressure (PAWP). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed., Results: Twenty-nine patients were considered surgically amenable, and 20 patients were inoperable. Mean PAP, PVR, and PAWP were 48 ± 11 mmHg, 868 ± 461 dynes*sec*cm(-5), and 11 ± 5 mmHg, without differences between surgical and non-surgical patients (P > 0.5). In all patients accurate registration was reached (FS = 4.1 ± 0.7; range, 2-5). PVO and central OI separated PEA-amenable patients (P ≤ 0.001) resulting in the area under the curve of 0.828 (cutoff for PVO: 37.8% with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 79%) and 0.755 (cutoff for central OI: 29% with a sensitivity and specificity of 86.2% and 79%) for operability., Conclusion: An accurate interpretation of rigidly registered CTPA and perfusion SPECT may contribute to stratification of operability in patients with CTEPH., (© The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2015.)

Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a long-term complication following an acute pulmonary embolism (PE). It is frequently diagnosed at advanced stages which is concerning as delayed treatment has important implications for favourable clinical outcome. Performing a follow-up examination of patients diagnosed with acute PE regardless of persisting symptoms and using all available technical procedures would be both cost-intensive and possibly ineffective. Focusing diagnostic procedures therefore on only symptomatic patients may be a practical approach for detecting relevant CTEPH.This study aimed to evaluate if a follow-up program for patients with acute PE based on telephone monitoring of symptoms and further examination of only symptomatic patients could detect CTEPH. In addition, we investigated the role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) as a diagnostic tool., Methods: In a prospective cohort study all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PE (n=170, 76 males, 94 females within 26 months) were recruited according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were contacted via telephone and asked to answer standardized questions relating to symptoms. At the time of the final analysis 130 patients had been contacted. Symptomatic patients underwent a structured evaluation with echocardiography, CPET and complete work-up for CTEPH., Results: 37.7%, 25.5% and 29.3% of the patients reported symptoms after three, six, and twelve months respectively. Subsequent clinical evaluation of these symptomatic patients saw 20.4%, 11.5% and 18.8% of patients at the respective three, six and twelve months time points having an echocardiography suggesting pulmonary hypertension (PH). CTEPH with pathological imaging and a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ≥ 25 mm Hg at rest was confirmed in eight subjects. Three subjects with mismatch perfusion defects showed an exercise induced increase of PAP without increasing pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP). Two subjects with pulmonary hypertension at rest and one with an exercise induced increase of mPAP with normal PAOP showed perfusion defects without echocardiographic signs of PH but a suspicious CPET., Conclusion: A follow-up program based on telephone monitoring of symptoms and further structured evaluation of symptomatic subjects can detect patients with CTEPH. CPET may serve as a complementary diagnostic tool.

Background: Animal studies and data from a single-center study suggest that tobacco smoke exposure may be a risk factor for precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH)., Objective: We aimed to survey tobacco smoke exposure in a large PH collective and to compare it with epidemiological data from healthy subjects., Methods: This is an international, multicenter, case-control study including patients with pulmonary arterial and chronic thromboembolic PH. All patients were asked specific questions about tobacco smoke exposure. Healthy controls were retrieved from the Swiss Health Survey (n = 18,747)., Results: Overall (n = 472), 49% of PH patients were smokers and there was a clear sex difference (women 37%, men 71%). Significantly more PH men were smokers compared with healthy controls, whereas less PH women were ever active smokers. However, 50% of the non-smoking PH women were exposed to secondhand smoke, leading to a significantly higher number of tobacco smoke-exposed individuals compared to healthy controls. PH smokers were significantly younger compared to those not exposed., Conclusion: Active and environmental tobacco smoke exposure is common in PH. The higher prevalence of male PH smokers, the higher exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in PH women compared to healthy controls and the lower age at PH diagnosis in smokers may indicate a pathogenic role of tobacco smoke exposure in PH., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a serious complication of pulmonary embolism (PE). Taking into account the reported incidence of CTEPH after acute PE, the number of patients with undiagnosed CTEPH may be high., Objectives: We aimed to determine if cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) could serve as complementary tool in the diagnosis of CTEPH and can detect CTEPH in patients with normal echocardiography., Methods: At diagnosis, we analyzed the data of CPET parameters in 42 patients with proven CTEPH and 51 controls, and evaluated the performance of two scores., Results: VE/VCO2 slope, EQO2, EQCO2, P(A-a)O2, end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 at anaerobic threshold (PETCO2) and capillary to end-tidal carbon dioxide gradient [P(c-ET)CO2] were significantly different between patients with CTEPH and controls (p < 0.001). P(c-ET)CO2 was the single parameter with the highest sensitivity (85.7%) and specificity (88.2%). A score combining VE/VCO2 slope, P(A-a)O2, P(c-ET)CO2, PETCO2 [4-parameter-CPET (4-P-CPET) score] reached a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 92.2% after cross-validation. In 42 patients with CTEPH, echocardiography identified PH in 29 patients (69%), but it was normal in 13 patients (31%). All patients with normal or unmeasurable right ventricular systolic pressure had a pathological CPET. Twelve of the 13 patients (92%) were detected by both CPET scores., Conclusion: CPET is a useful noninvasive diagnostic tool for the detection of CTEPH in patients with suspected PH but normal echocardiography. The 4-P-CPET score provides a high sensitivity with the highest specificity.

Copyright of Wiener Klinisches Magazin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

• This is the first reported case of vasculitis caused by Mycobacterium goodii. • Treatment consisted of antimycobacterial and anti-inflammatory drugs. • PET-CT served as the disease-monitoring tool in this special vasculitis. A 57-year-old Caucasian woman suffered from dyspnea on exertion. One year following a supposed pulmonary embolism event, a chronic thromboembolic vasculopathy was diagnosed and a pulmonary thromboendarterectomy was performed. However, a granulomatous pulmonary arterial vasculitis was identified upon examination. DNA of Mycobacterium goodii was detected as the most likely causative agent. Anti-inflammatory and anti-mycobacterial therapy was initiated for more than 12 months. Regular PET-CT scans revealed improvement under therapy. The last PET-CT did not show any tracer uptake following 10 months of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]