Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Anxiety and depression are common in pulmonary hypertension (PH) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is reduced. Sufficient analyses in incident and prevalent patients are lacking, so we provide a comparative analysis of these groups with focus on anxiety, depression and HRQoL. Methods: Depression, anxiety and HRQoL were retrospectively analyzed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Short Form 36 questionnaire in 91 prevalent and 21 incident PH outpatients from a German tertiary care center specialized in PH. The acquired data as well as hemodynamic and functional parameters of prevalent and incident cases were compared. Results: HRQoL was reduced in both cohorts of patients. Incident patients had significantly worse HRQoL in physical dominated scales than prevalent patients (physical component summary score: p = 0.02; physical role performance: p < 0.01). Depression and anxiety were more pronounced in prevalent patients (elevated depression scales: 28.6% of incident group, 35.2% of prevalent group, elevated anxiety scores: 28.6% of incident group, 39.6% of prevalent group). The groups did not differ in hemodynamic data, but incident patients had significantly lower cardiac biomarkers such as NT-proBNP (p = 0.016) and hs-troponin (p = 0.017). The time since diagnosis was a predictor of the subscale physical role performance (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Physical domains of HRQoL seem to be more limited in incident patients with PH. Anxiety and depression are frequent in both groups. A screening for anxiety and depression is important from the onset of the diagnosis, and patients should receive appropriate therapy to improve HRQoL, anxiety and depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pirfenidone has been shown to slow disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, there are few treatment options for progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs)) other than IPF. In view of the pathomechanistic and clinical similarities between IPF and other progressive fibrotic ILDs, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with four non-IPF progressive fibrotic ILDs. We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel phase 2b trial (RELIEF) in 17 centres with expertise in ILD in Germany. Eligible participants were patients aged 18–80 years with progressive fibrotic ILD due to four diagnoses: collagen or vascular diseases (ie, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs), fibrotic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or asbestos-induced lung fibrosis. Other eligibility criteria included a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 40–90% predicted, a diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide of 10–90% predicted, and an annual decline of FVC of at least 5% predicted despite conventional therapy, based on at least three measurements within 6–24 months before enrolment. Patients who had received any previous antifibrotic therapy were excluded. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either oral pirfenidone (267 mg three times per day in week 1, 534 mg three times per day in week 2, and 801 mg three times per day thereafter) or matched placebo, added to their ongoing medication. Randomisation was done centrally using permuted block randomisation with varying block sizes stratified by the four diagnostic groups. Patients, investigators, statisticians, monitors, and the study coordinator were masked to treatment assignment until database closure. The placebo-controlled study period was 48 weeks (including up-titration). The primary endpoint was absolute change in percentage of predicted FVC (FVC % predicted) from baseline to week 48 in the intention-to-treat population, with imputation of missing data by the smallest sum of squared differences and attribution of deceased patients to the lowest rank in a rank ANCOVA model. Additionally, we did linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analyses of FVC % predicted longitudinal data over the course of the study as a prespecified sensitivity analysis and post-hoc sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population using imputation methods of last observation carried forward [LOCF] and a regression-based multiple imputation procedure. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with EudraCT 2014-000861-32; DRKS00009822 and is no longer recruiting. Between April 5, 2016, and Oct 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 127 patients to treatment: 64 to pirfenidone, 63 to placebo. After 127 patients had been randomised, the study was prematurely terminated on the basis of an interim analysis for futility triggered by slow recruitment. After 48 weeks and in the overall population of 127 patients, rank ANCOVA with diagnostic group included as a factor showed a significantly lower decline in FVC % predicted in the pirfenidone group compared with placebo (p=0·043); the result was similar when the model was stratified by diagnostic group (p=0·042). A significant treatment effect was also observed when applying the LOCF and multiple imputation methods to analyses of the primary endpoint. The median difference (Hodges-Lehmann estimate) between pirfenidone and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was 1·69 FVC % predicted (95% CI –0·65 to 4·03). In the linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analysis of FVC % predicted, the estimated difference between treatment and placebo groups from baseline to week 48 was 3·53 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·21 to 6·86) with imputation of deaths as prespecified, or 2·79 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·03 to 5·54) without imputation. One death (non-respiratory) occurred in the pirfenidone group (2%) and five deaths (three of which were respiratory) occurred in the placebo group (8%). The most frequent serious adverse events in both groups were infections and infestations (five [8%] in the pirfenidone group, ten [16%] in the placebo group); general disorders including disease worsening (two [3%] in the pirfenidone group, seven [11%] in the placebo group); and cardiac disorders (one ([2%] in the pirfenidone group, 5 [8%] in the placebo group). Adverse events (grade 3–4) of nausea (two patients on pirfenidone, two on placebo), dyspnoea (one patient on pirfenidone, one on placebo), and diarrhoea (one patient on pirfenidone) were also observed. In view of the premature study termination, results should be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, our data suggest that in patients with fibrotic ILDs other than IPF who deteriorate despite conventional therapy, adding pirfenidone to existing treatment might attenuate disease progression as measured by decline in FVC. German Center for Lung Research, Roche Pharma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The 2009 European Guidelines on Pulmonary Hypertension did not cover only pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) but also some aspects of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in chronic lung disease. These guidelines point out that the drugs currently used to treat patients with PAH (prostanoids, endothelin receptor antagonists and phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors) have not been sufficiently investigated in other forms of PH. Therefore, the use of these drugs in patients with chronic lung disease and PH is not recommended. This recommendation, however, is not always in agreement with medical needs as physicians feel sometimes inclined to also treat other forms of pulmonary hypertension which may affect the quality of life and survival of these patients in a similar manner as in PAH. In June 2010, a consensus conference was held in Cologne, Germany, to discuss open and controversial issues surrounding the practical implementation of the European Guidelines. The conference was sponsored by the German Society of Cardiology, the German Society of Respiratory Medicine and the German Society of Pediatric Cardiology (DGK, DGP and DGPK). To this end, a number of working groups were initiated, one of which was specifically dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of PH due to chronic lung disease. This manuscript describes in detail the results and recommendations of this working group which were last updated in October 2011. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The 2009 European Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension have been adopted for Germany. The guidelines contain detailed recommendations on the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, the practical implementation of the European Guidelines in Germany requires the consideration of several country-specific issues and already existing novel data. This requires a detailed commentary to the guidelines, and in some aspects an update already appears necessary. In June 2010, a Consensus Conference organized by the PH working groups of the German Society of Cardiology (DGK), the German Society of Respiratory Medicine (DGP) and the German Society of Pediatric Cardiology (DGPK) was held in Cologne, Germany. This conference aimed to solve practical and controversial issues surrounding the implementation of the European Guidelines in Germany. To this end, a number of working groups was initiated, one of which was specifically dedicated to the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This commentary describes in detail the results and recommendations of the working group on treatment of PAH which were last updated in October 2011. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: There is a paucity of observational data on antifibrotic therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to assess the course of disease of IPF patients with and without antifibrotic therapy under real-life conditions., Methods: We analysed data from a non-interventional, prospective cohort study of consecutively enrolled IPF patients from 20 interstitial lung disease expert centres in Germany. Data quality was ensured by automated plausibility checks, on-site monitoring, and source data verification. Propensity scores were applied to account for known differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy., Results: Among the 588 patients suitable for analysis, the mean±sd age was 69.8±9.1 years, and 81.0% were male. The mean±sd duration of disease since diagnosis was 1.8±3.4 years. The mean±sd value at baseline for forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusion capacity ( D LCO ) were 68.6±18.8% predicted and 37.8±18.5% predicted, respectively. During a mean±sd follow-up of 1.2±0.7 years, 194 (33.0%) patients died. The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 87% versus 46% and 62% versus 21%, respectively, for patients with versus without antifibrotic therapy. The risk of death was 37% lower in patients with antifibrotic therapy (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.45; 0.87; p=0.005). The results were robust (and remained statistically significant) on multivariable analysis. Overall decline of FVC and D LCO was slow and did not differ significantly between patients with or without antifibrotic therapy., Conclusions: Survival was significantly higher in IPF patients with antifibrotic therapy, but the course of lung function parameters was similar in patients with and without antifibrotic therapy. This suggests that in clinical practice, premature mortality of IPF patients eventually occurs despite stable measurements for FVC and D LCO ., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Behr reports grants and personal fees from Boehriger Ingelheim, personal fees from Actelion, Roche, Galapagos, Promedior, BMS and MSD, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: A. Prasse reports grants and personal fees from Roche/InterMune and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Wirtz reports personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Koschel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Pittrow reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Biogen, Shield and MSD, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Held has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Klotsche has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Andreas reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Claussen reports personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Grohé has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Wilkens reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Actelion, Biotest, GSK, Pfizer and Bayer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Hagmeyer has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Skowasch reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.F. Meyer reports personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Kirschner has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Gläser reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, personal fees from Roche, Actelion, Berlin Chemie and Astra, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Kahn has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Welte reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Neurohr reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Schwaiblmair has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Bahmer reports grants from German Center of Lung Research (DZL), personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: T. Oqueka has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Frankenberger has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Kreuter reports grants and personal fees from Roche/InterMune and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)

In the summer of 2016, delegates from the German Society of Cardiology (DGK), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), and the German Society of Pediatric Cardiology (DGPK) met in Cologne, Germany, to define consensus-based practice recommendations for the management of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). These recommendations were built on the 2015 European Pulmonary Hypertension guidelines, aiming at their practical implementation, considering country-specific issues, and including new evidence, where available. To this end, a number of working groups was initiated, one of which was specifically dedicated to the definition, clinical classification and initial diagnosis of PH. While the European guidelines provide a detailed clinical classification and a structured approach for diagnostic testing, their application in routine care may be challenging, particularly given the changing phenotype of PH patients who are nowadays often elderly and may present with multiple potential causes of PH, as well as comorbid conditions. Specifically, the working group addresses the thoroughness of diagnostic testing, and the roles of echocardiography, exercise testing, and genetic testing in diagnosing PH. Furthermore, challenges in the diagnostic work-up of patients with various causes of PH including "PAH with comorbidities", CTEPH and coexisting conditions are highlighted, and a modified diagnostic algorithm is provided. The detailed results and recommendations of the working group on definition, clinical classification and initial diagnosis of PH, which were last updated in the spring of 2018, are summarized in this article., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The 2015 European Guidelines on Pulmonary Hypertension did not only cover pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) but also some aspects of pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with chronic lung disease. The European Guidelines point out that the drugs currently used to treat patients with PAH (prostanoids, endothelin receptor antagonists, phosphodiesterase‑5 inhibitors, sGC stimulators) have not been sufficiently investigated in other forms of PH. Therefore, the European Guidelines do not recommend the use of these drugs in patients with chronic lung disease and PH. This recommendation, however, is not always in agreement with medical ethics as physicians sometimes feel inclined to treat other forms of PH which may affect quality of life and survival of these patients in a similar manner. To this end, it is crucial to consider the severity of both PH and the underlying lung disease. In June 2016, a Consensus Conference organized by the PH working groups of the German Society of Cardiology (DGK), the German Society of Respiratory Medicine (DGP) and the German Society of Paediatric Cardiology (DGPK) was held in Cologne, Germany, to discuss open and controversial issues surrounding the practical implementation of the European Guidelines. Several working groups were created, one of which was dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of PH in patients with chronic lung disease. The 2018 updated recommendations of this working group are summarized in the present paper., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.)

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.

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.)