Ryan, John

AbstractRight heart (RH) structure and function are major determinants of symptoms and prognosis in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). RH imaging provides detailed information, but evidence and guidelines on the use of RH imaging in treatment decisions are limited. We conducted a Delphi study to gather expert opinion on the role of RH imaging in decision‐making for treatment escalation in PAH. A panel of 17 physicians with expertise in PAH and RH imaging used three surveys in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the role of RH imaging in PAH. Survey 1 used open‐ended questions to gather information. Survey 2 contained Likert scale and other questions intended to identify consensus on topics identified in Survey 1. Survey 3 contained Likert scale questions derived from Survey 2 and summary information on the results of Survey 2. The Delphi panel reached consensus that RH imaging is likely to improve the current risk stratification algorithms and help differentiate risk levels in patients at intermediate risk. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, right ventricular fractional area change, right atrial area, tricuspid regurgitation, inferior venae cavae diameter, and pericardial effusion should be part of routine echocardiography in PAH. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is valuable but limited by cost and access. A pattern of abnormal RH imaging results should prompt consideration of hemodynamic evaluation and possible treatment escalation. RH imaging is an important tool for decisions about treatment escalation in PAH, but systematically collected evidence is needed to clarify its role.

Background Current mortality data for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the United States are based on registries that enrolled patients prior to 2010. We sought to determine mortality in PAH in the modern era using the PHAR (Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry). Methods and Results We identified all adult patients with PAH enrolled in the PHAR between September 2015 and September 2020 (N=935). We used Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models to assess mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years. Patients were stratified based on disease severity by 3 validated risk scores. In treatment‐naïve patients, we compared survival based on initial treatment strategy. The median age was 56 years (44–68 years), and 76% were women. Of the 935 patients, 483 (52%) were ≤6 months from PAH diagnosis. There were 121 deaths (12.9%) during a median follow‐up time of 489 days (281–812 days). The 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year mortality was 8% (95% CI, 6%–10%), 16% (95% CI, 13%–19%), and 21% (95% CI, 17%–25%), respectively. When stratified into low‐, intermediate‐, and high‐risk PAH, the mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 1%, 4% to 6%, and 7% to 11% for low risk; 7% to 8%, 11% to 16%, and 18% to 20% for intermediate risk; and 12% to 19%, 22% to 38%, and 28% to 55% for high risk, respectively. In treatment‐naïve patients, initial combination therapy was associated with better 1‐year survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.19–0.95]; P =0.037). Conclusions Mortality in the intermediate‐ and high‐risk patients with PAH remains unacceptably high in the PHAR, suggesting the importance for early diagnosis, aggressive use of available therapies, and the need for better therapeutics.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare, morbid, potentially curable subtype of pulmonary hypertension that negatively impacts health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Little is known about differences in HRQoL and hospitalization between CTEPH patients and idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) patients. Using multivariable linear regression and mixed effects models, we examined differences in HRQoL assessed by emPHasis‐10 (E10) and SF‐12 between CTEPH and IPAH patients in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry, a prospective multicenter cohort of patients newly evaluated at a Pulmonary Hypertension Care Center. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) for hospitalization amongst the two groups. We included 461 IPAH patients and 169 CTEPH patients. Twenty‐one percent of CTEPH patients underwent pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (PTE) before the end of follow‐up. At baseline, patients with CTEPH had significantly worse HRQoL (higher E10 scores) (ß 2.83, SE 1.11, p = 0.01); however, differences did not persist over time. CTEPH patients had higher rates of hospitalization (excluding the hospitalization for PTE) compared to IPAH patients after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, WHO functional class and six‐minute walk distance (IRR 1.66, 95%CI 1.04–2.65, p = 0.03). CTEPH patients who underwent PTE had improved HRQoL as compared to those who were medically managed, but patients who underwent PTE were younger, had higher cardiac outputs and greater six‐minute walk distances. In this large, prospective, multicenter cohort, CTEPH patients had significantly worse baseline HRQoL and higher rates of hospitalizations than those with IPAH. CTEPH patients who underwent PTE had significant improvements in HRQoL.

Compared to idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), patients with portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) have worse survival. Health disparities may contribute to these differences but have not been studied. We sought to compare socioeconomic factors in patients with POPH and IPAH and to determine whether socioeconomic status and/or POPH diagnosis were associated with treatment and health‐care utilization. We performed a cross‐sectional study of adults enrolled in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry. Patients with IPAH (n = 344) and POPH (n = 57) were compared. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to be college graduates (19.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.02) and more likely to be unemployed (54.7% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.001) and have an annual household income below poverty level (45.7% vs. 19.0%, p < 0.001). Patients with POPH had similar functional class, quality of life, 6‐min walk distance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure with a higher cardiac index. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to receive combination therapy (46.4% vs. 62.2%, p = 0.03) and endothelin receptor antagonists (28.6% vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001) at enrollment with similar treatment at follow‐up. Patients with POPH had more emergency department visits (1.7 ± 2.1 vs. 0.9 ± 1.2, p = 0.009) and hospitalizations in the six months preceding enrollment (1.5 ± 2.1 vs. 0.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.02). Both POPH diagnosis and lower education level were independently associated with a higher number of emergency department visits. Compared to IPAH, patients with POPH have lower socioeconomic status, are less likely to receive initial combination therapy and endothelin receptor antagonists but have similar treatment at follow‐up, and have increased health‐care utilization.

Abstract Rationale Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) typically undergo frequent clinical evaluation. The incidence and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its impact on routine management for patients with pulmonary vascular disease is currently unknown. Objectives To assess the cumulative incidence and outcomes of recognized COVID-19 for patients with PAH/CTEPH followed at accredited pulmonary hypertension centers, and to evaluate the pandemic's impact on clinic operations at these centers. Methods A survey was e-mailed to program directors of centers accredited by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association. Descriptive analyses and linear regression were used to analyze results. Results Seventy-seven center directors were successfully e-mailed a survey, and 58 responded (75%). The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 recognized in individuals with PAH/CTEPH was 2.9 cases per 1,000 patients, similar to the general U.S. population. In patients with PAH/CTEPH for whom COVID-19 was recognized, 30% were hospitalized and 12% died. These outcomes appear worse than the general population. A large impact on clinic operations was observed including fewer clinic visits and substantially increased use of telehealth. A majority of centers curtailed diagnostic testing and a minority limited new starts of medical therapy. Most centers did not use experimental therapies in patients with PAH/CTEPH diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusions The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 recognized in patients with PAH/CTEPH appears similar to the broader population, although outcomes may be worse. Although the total number of patients with PAH/CTEPH recognized to have COVID-19 was small, the impact of COVID-19 on broader clinic operations, testing, and treatment was substantial.