Search

History:  We admitted a 65-year-old patient with suspected reactivation of a pulmonary tuberculosis for further diagnosis., Findings and Diagnosis:  14 months after completing a standard treatment course against pulmonary tuberculosis, the patient presented with cough and night sweat. A CT-scan revealed signs of a bipulmonary progress. Microbiological results proved multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (resistances against isoniazid and rifampicin). Reviewing the patient's old records uncovered a previous isoniazid-resistance at the start of the first treatment course, which had not been appropriately addressed., Therapy and Course:  The patient was started on oral therapy with Bedaquiline, Linezolid, Terizidon and Levofloxacin., Conclusion:  Treating tuberculosis, considering drug resistances is crucial. To avoid ineffective therapy, molecular diagnostic methods are recommended, however, cultural testing remains essential. Diagnostic latency, rising rates of drug resistances and lengthy treatment courses contribute to the complexity of treatment. In Germany, specialized outpatient clinics are available since 2014 for diagnosis and treatment of patients with tuberculosis or non-tuberculous mycobacterial diseases, even in the event of mere suspicion., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Parasitic infections by Echinococcus granulosus are rare in Germany, and predominantly affect individuals with a migration background. Liver and lungs are the most commonly affected organs. Pulmonary cysts often remain asymptomatic until rupture, at which point symptoms may manifest. The diagnostic approach typically involves a combination of imaging modalities and serological tests, occasionally supplemented by molecular genetic methods. Given the global movements of migration, considerations of the epidemiology of common diseases in the country of origin should also be taken into account in the differential diagnosis. We present the unusual case of a pneumogenic sepsis in a young man from Syria, where the combination of medical history alongside radiological, serological, and molecular genetic investigations ultimately led to the diagnosis of a severe pulmonary echinococcosis with rupture., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), acute vasoreactivity testing during right heart catheterization may identify acute vasoresponders, for whom treatment with high-dose calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is recommended. However, long-term outcomes in the current era remain largely unknown. We sought to evaluate the implications of acute vasoreactivity response for long-term response to CCBs and other outcomes., Methods: Patients diagnosed with PAH between January 1999 and December 2018 at 15 pulmonary hypertension centers were included and analyzed retrospectively. In accordance with current guidelines, acute vasoreactivity response was defined by a decrease of mean pulmonary artery pressure by ≥10 mm Hg to reach <40 mm Hg, without a decrease in cardiac output. Long-term response to CCBs was defined as alive with unchanged initial CCB therapy with or without other initial PAH therapy and World Health Organization functional class I/II and/or low European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society risk status at 12 months after initiation of CCBs. Patients were followed for up to 5 years; clinical measures, outcome, and subsequent treatment patterns were captured., Results: Of 3702 patients undergoing right heart catheterization for PAH diagnosis, 2051 had idiopathic, heritable, or drug-induced PAH, of whom 1904 (92.8%) underwent acute vasoreactivity testing. A total of 162 patients fulfilled acute vasoreactivity response criteria and received an initial CCB alone (n=123) or in combination with another PAH therapy (n=39). The median follow-up time was 60.0 months (interquartile range, 30.8-60.0), during which overall survival was 86.7%. At 12 months, 53.2% remained on CCB monotherapy, 14.7% on initial CCB plus another initial PAH therapy, and the remaining patients had the CCB withdrawn and/or PAH therapy added. CCB long-term response was found in 54.3% of patients. Five-year survival was 98.5% in long-term responders versus 73.0% in nonresponders. In addition to established vasodilator responder criteria, pulmonary artery compliance at acute vasoreactivity testing, low risk status and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels at early follow-up correlated with long-term response and predicted survival., Conclusions: Our data display heterogeneity within the group of vasoresponders, with a large subset failing to show a sustained satisfactory clinical response to CCBs. This highlights the necessity for comprehensive reassessment during early follow-up. The use of pulmonary artery compliance in addition to current measures may better identify those likely to have a good long-term response., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Gerhardt reports remuneration for lectures from Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD, and grants to the institution from Actelion, Bayer, and Janssen. E. Fiessler reports no disclosures. Dr Olsson reports fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, United Therapeutics, MSD, GSK, and Pfizer. Dr Kayser reports no disclosures. Dr Kovacs reports personal fees for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Chiesi, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. Dr Gall reports fees for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Ghofrani reports personal fees and consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer; other from Bellerophon Pulse Technologies; and consultancy fees from MSD. Dr Eslam reports no disclosures. Dr Lang reports remuneration for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, AOP Orphan, AstraZeneca, Bayer-Schering, Cordis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Neutrolis, Janssen, and United Therapeutics. N. Benjamin reports fees for lectures from Actelion, Bayer, MSD, and Janssen. Dr Grünig reports fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Halank reports remuneration for consultancy or lectures from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerlinChemie, GSK, Janssen, MSD, and Novartis. Dr Lange reports personal fees for lectures or consultancy from Acceleron Pharma, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics; and grants to the institution from Acceleron Pharma, Actelion, Bayer, Bellerophon, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Ulrich reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation, Zurich Lung, Swiss Lung, and Orpha Swiss; and grants and personal fees from Actelion, Johnson & Johnson, and MSD. Dr Leuchte reports fees for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr Held reports personal fees for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Klose reports speaker or consultancy fees from Actelion, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. Dr Ewert reports lecture fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and OMT; and industry-sponsored grants from Actelion and OMT. Dr Wilkens reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr Pizarro reports honoraria for lectures from Actelion and Janssen. Dr Skowasch reports honoraria for lectures and consultancy from Actelion and Janssen. Dr Wissmüller reports remunerations for lectures from Janssen. Dr Hellmich reports no disclosures. Dr Olschewski reports remuneration for lectures or consultancy or grants to the institution from Actelion, Bayer, Belerophon, Boehringer, GSK, Inventiva, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr Hoeper reports fees for consultations or lectures from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr Rosenkranz reports remuneration for lectures or consultancy from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Aerovate, Altavant, AOP, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Edwards, Ferrer, Gossamer, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor; and grants to the institution from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Janssen.

Objectives: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) occurs in various connective tissue diseases (CTDs). We sought to assess contemporary treatment patterns and survival of patients with various forms of CTD-PAH., Methods: We analysed data from COMPERA, a European pulmonary hypertension registry, to describe treatment strategies and survival in patients with newly diagnosed PAH associated with SSc, SLE, MCTD, UCTD and other types of CTD. All-cause mortality was analysed according to the underlying CTD. For patients with SSc-PAH, we also assessed survival according to initial therapy with endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) or a combination of these two drug classes., Results: This analysis included 607 patients with CTD-PAH. Survival estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years for SSc-PAH (n = 390) were 85%, 59% and 42%; for SLE-PAH (n = 34) they were 97%, 77% and 61%; for MCTD-PAH (n = 33) they were 97%, 70% and 59%; for UCTD-PAH (n = 60) they were 88%, 67% and 52%; and for other CTD-PAH (n = 90) they were 92%, 69% and 55%, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the survival of patients with SSc-PAH was significantly worse compared with the other conditions (P = 0.001). In these patients, the survival estimates were significantly better with initial ERA-PDE5i combination therapy than with initial ERA or PDE5i monotherapy (P = 0.016 and P = 0.012, respectively)., Conclusions: Mortality remains high in patients with CTD-PAH, especially for patients with SSc-PAH. However, for patients with SSc-PAH, our results suggest that long-term survival may be improved with initial ERA-PDE5i combination therapy compared with initial monotherapy., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Acute dyspnoea is one of the most common internal medicine symptoms in the emergency department. It arises from an acute illness or from the exacerbation of a chronic illness. Symptom-related emergency structures and corresponding structural guidelines already exist in the stroke and chest pain units for dealing with the leading symptoms of acute stroke and acute chest pain. These are lacking in Germany for the key symptom of dyspnoea, although the benefits of these structures have already been proven in other countries. The German Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine (DGP) has now set up a task force together with the Association of Pneumology Clinics (VPK), in order to deal with the topic and develop appropriate structural guidelines for such "dyspnoea units" in Germany. At the end of the process, the certification of such units at German hospitals is optional., Competing Interests: Dominic Dellweg: Vortragshonorar für die Firma Löwenstein Medical. Georg Nilius: Forschungsförderung von Sleep well, Löwenstein medical, Fisher & Paykel Healhtcare, Lungpacer, EllyLilly, Onera, Vortragshonorare von AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie, Löwenstein Medical, Insmed, Reisekosten Fisher Paykel Healthcare. Achim Grünewaldt: Vortragshonorare: Boehringer Ingelheim; Honorare für Advisory Board: GSK, Forschungsunterstützung: TNI. Matthias Held: Beratungshonorare von Actelion, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Vorträge: Actelion, Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Santis. Andreas Schlesinger: Vortragshonore von Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Linde, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, medac. Winfried Randerath gibt keinen direkten Interessenkonflikt im Zusammenhang mit dem vorgelegten Beitrag an. Er hat in den vergangenen 3 Jahren Honorare für die Mitarbeit in einem Advisory Board der Firmen Bioprojet, CSL Behring, Procter & Gamble, Jazz Pharmaceuticals sowie Honorar und Reisekosten für Vortragstätigkeiten der Firmen Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bioprojet, Berlin Chemie, GSK, MSD, Westfalen Medical, Heinen und Löwenstein, Philips Respironics, Habel Medizintechnik erhalten. Die anderen Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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.)

The current guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension (PH) contain several important new aspects. The definition of PH is changed to a mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) of >20mmHg in combination with PVR threshold value of >2 Wood units to a define a precapillary component. The clinical classification of PH still distinguishes 5 main groups. The diagnostic algorithm begins with the evaluation of dyspnea in primary care and early referral of patients with suspected PAH (group I), CTEPH (group IV) or severe PH of other groups.Initial treatment planning in PAH is guided by complex risk assessment in 3 risk levels, follow-up assessment is performed using 3 parameters (WHO-FC, NT-proBNP, and 6MWD) with 4 risk levels or individually in patients with comorbidities.For low or intermediate risk patients, initial combination therapy with a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor and an endothelin receptor antagonist is recommended. In high-risk patients, initial triple combination therapy with additional prostacyclin analogues should be considered.Diagnosis and treatment of CTEPH including pulmonary endarterectomy, medical therapy and pulmonary balloon angioplasty should be carried out in CTEPH centers.Patients with severe PH (PVR >5WE) due to PH group II, III or V should be referred to the PH center for study inclusion or individual therapy., Competing Interests: Matthias Held erhielt Honorare für Referenten und/oder Beratertätigkeit von Actelion, Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Ferrer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, OMT, Pfizer, Roche, Santis Heinrike Wilkens erhielt Honorare für Referenten- und/oder Beratertätigkeit von Bayer AG, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sanchyo, Ferrer, GSK, Janssen, MSD und Roche, (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Lung diseases and hypoventilation syndromes are often associated with pulmonary hypertension (PH). In most cases, PH is not severe. This is defined hemodynamically by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAPm) > 20 mmHg, a pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (PAWP) ≤ 15 mmHg and a pulmonary vascular resistance of ≤ 5 Wood units (WU). Both the non-severe (PVR ≤ 5 WU) and much more the severe PH (PVR > 5 WU) have an unfavorable prognosis.If PH is suspected, it is recommended to primarily check whether risk factors for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH, group 1 PH) or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH, group 4 PH) are present. If risk factors are present or there is a suspicion of severe PH in lung patients, it is recommended that the patient should be presented to a PH outpatient clinic promptly.For patients with severe PH associated with lung diseases, personalized, individual therapy is recommended - if possible within the framework of therapy studies. Currently, a therapy attempt with PH specific drugs should only be considered in COPD patients if the associated PH is severe and a "pulmonary vascular" phenotype (severe precapillary PH, but typically only mild to moderate airway obstruction, no or mild hypercapnia and DLCO < 45 % of predicted value) is present. In patients with severe PH associated with interstitial lung disease phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors may be considered in individual cases. Inhaled treprostinil may be considered also in non-severe PH in this patient population., Competing Interests: M.H.: Honorare für Vortrags- und Beratertätigkeiten von AstraZeneca, Janssen und MSD. Reisekosten von Janssen. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.K.E.Z.: Reisekosten und Vortragstätigkeiten von Fa. MSD, Janssen und Ferrer. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.N.S.: Honorare für Berater- und Vortragstätigkeiten von MSD und Janssen. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.S.U.: Forschungsgelder vom Schweizerischen Nationalfond, der Lungenliga Schweiz, der Lunge Zürich, der Emdo Foundation, von Janssen SA, Orpha Swiss. Reisekosten und Vortragstätigkeiten von Janssen SA, Orpha Swiss, MSD und Novartis, alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.M.H.: Beratungshonorare: Actelion, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer. Honorare für Vorträge von: Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Santis.T.K.: Honorare für Vortragstätigkeiten und Reisekostenübernahme von AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Janssen und MSD. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.V.F.: Honorare für Vortragstätigkeiten und Reisekostenübernahme von Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Chiesi, Janssen, MSD, alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.M.H.: keineC.N.: Honorare für Vortrags- und Beratertätigkeiten von AstraZeneca, Janssen und MSD. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.J.R.: keineS.H.: Zuwendungen von Janssen, Bayer und MSD, die in keinem Zusammenhang mit dieser Arbeit stehen.D.S.: Vortrags- und Beratungshonorare und/oder Forschungsunterstützung von AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Sanofi, DFG, BMBF. Alle nicht im Zusammenhang mit der aktuellen Übersichtsarbeit.N.K.: erhielt finanzielle Zuwendungen von Janssen, Ferrer, Bayer und MSD, die in keinem Zusammenhang mit dieser Arbeit stehen.J.B.: Honorare für Vorträge und Beratertätigkeit von AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Ferrer, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Für Tätigkeiten im Rahmen von Data Monitoring and Safety Boards erhielt er Honorare von Actelion und Galapagos. Es besteht kein Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Publikation., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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.)

The new guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension include a new diagnostic algorithm and provide specific recommendations for the required diagnostic procedures, including screening methods. These recommendations are commented on by national experts under the auspices of the DACH. These comments provide additional decision support and background information, serving as a further guide for the complex diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension., Competing Interests: K.T.: Vortrags- und/oder Beratungshonorare von Janssen.N.K.: Vortrags- und/oder Beratungshonorare von Janssen.M.J.R.: Vortrags- und/oder Beratungshonorare von Bayer vital, Janssen, MSD.J.B.: Honorare für Vorträge und Beratertätigkeit von AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Ferrer, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Für Tätigkeiten im Rahmen von Data Monitoring and Safety Boards erhielt er Honorare von Actelion und Galapagos. Es besteht kein Zusammenhang mit der vorliegenden Publikation.B.E. hat von folgenden Firmen Vortragshonorare bzw. Honorare für Advisory Boards innerhalb der letzten 3 Jahre erhalten: Janssen, OMT, MSD, Bayer, AOP. Alle nicht in Zusammenhang mit dieser Arbeit.A.H. erhielt Fahrtkostenerstattungen von Actelion, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly und OMT; er erhielt Rednerhonorare von Encysive, Pfizer, Actelion, Medtronic, Schiller, GlaxoSmithKline, OMT, AOP Orphan und Janssen; er erhielt Autorenhonorare von Actelion; er erhielt Beraterhonorare von Actelion, Bayer, Ethypharm und GlaxoSmithKline; er besitzt Aktien von Gilead, Merck, Merck KGAA, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Abbott, Siemens und Takeda. Seine Klinik beteiligte sich an Studien von Actelion, Medtronic, Edwards, Occlutec, Novartis, Lilly, Bayer und Bristol Myers Squibb; seine Klinik erhielt Forschungsgelder von Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Actelion und Medtronic. Alle nicht in Zusammenhang mit dieser Arbeit.H.G.: Vortrags-/Beraterhonorare von Amgen, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, United Therapeutics.M.H. erhielt Beratungshonorare von Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer; Honorare für Vorträge von AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Santis.Alle anderen Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2022, the definition of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in the presence of left heart disease was updated according to the new joint guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS). The impact of the new ESC/ERS definition on the prevalence of post-capillary PH (pc-PH) and its subgroups of isolated post-capillary (Ipc-PH) and combined pre- and post-capillary PH (Cpc-PH) in patients with left heart disease is unclear., Methods: We retrospectively identified N = 242 patients with left heart disease with available data on right heart catheterisation (RHC) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). The proportion of pc-PH and its subgroups was calculated according to the old and new ESC/ERS PH definition. As the old definition did not allow the exact allocation of all patients with pc-PH into a respective subgroup, unclassifiable patients (Upc-PH) were regarded separately., Results: Seventy-six out of 242 patients had pc-PH according to the new ESC/ERS definitions, with 72 of these patients also meeting the criteria of the old definition. Using the old definition, 50 patients were diagnosed with Ipc-PH, 4 with Cpc-PH, and 18 with Upc-PH. Applying the new definition, Ipc-PH was diagnosed in 35 patients (4 newly), and Cpc-PH in 41 patients. No CMR parameter allowed differentiating between Ipc-PH and Cpc-PH, regardless of which guideline version was used., Conclusion: Applying the new ESC/ERS 2022 guideline definitions mildly increased the proportion of patients diagnosed with pc-PH (+ 5.5%) but markedly increased Cpc-PH diagnoses. This effect was driven by the allocation of patients with formerly unclassifiable forms of post-capillary PH to the Cpc-PH subgroup and a significant shift of patients from the Ipc-PH to the Cpc-PH subgroup. Distribution of post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (pc-PH) subgroups according to the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) PH guidelines from 2015 and 2022 in N = 242 patients with left heart disease., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Pneumomediastinum, defined as abnormal presence of air in the mediastinum, is a rare cause of acute chest pain. The condition may occur spontaneously as well as a secondary consequence of trauma or medical interventions. The spontaneous pneumomediastinum (Hamman's syndrome) is associated with a good prognosis, even without intervention. However, undelying severe conditions such as gastrointestinal perforations should be excluded. Diagnosis might be made using conventionell chest x-ray; a CT scan may give additional useful information. A subcutanous emphysema is a common finding in patients with pneumomediastinum. The presence of air in the epidural space of the spinal canal (pneumorrhachis) is a rarely seen but likewise mostly benign complication. We report a case of a young man with Hamman's syndrome and pneumorrhachis, provoked by acute asthma exacerbation; despite pronounced symptoms, his condition could be treated conservatively., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Individuals with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) constitute a heterogeneous group of patients with diverse clinical characteristics and outcome., Objectives: To identify endotypes of individuals with acute VTE based on clinical characteristics at presentation through unsupervised cluster analysis and to evaluate their molecular proteomic profile and clinical outcome., Methods: Data from 591 individuals from the Genotyping and Molecular phenotyping of Venous thromboembolism (GMP-VTE) project were explored. Hierarchical clustering was applied to 58 variables to define VTE endotypes. Clinical characteristics, three-year incidence of thromboembolic events or death, and acute-phase plasma proteomics were assessed., Results: Four endotypes were identified, exhibiting different patterns of clinical characteristics and clinical course. Endotype 1 (n = 300), comprising older individuals with comorbidities, had the highest incidence of thromboembolic events or death (HR [95 % CI]: 3.76 [1.96-7.19]), followed by endotype 4 (n = 127) (HR [95 % CI]: 2.55 [1.26-5.16]), characterised by men with history of VTE and provoking risk factors, and endotype 3 (n = 57) (HR [95 % CI]: 1.57 [0.63-3.87]), composed of young women with provoking risk factors, vs. reference endotype 2 (n = 107). The reference endotype was constituted by individuals diagnosed with PE without comorbidities, who had the lowest incidence of the investigated endpoint. Differentially expressed proteins associated with the endotypes were related to distinct biological processes, supporting differences in molecular pathophysiology. The endotypes had superior prognostic ability compared to existing risk stratifications such as provoked vs unprovoked VTE and D-dimer levels., Conclusion: Four endotypes of VTE were identified by unsupervised phenotype-based clustering that diverge in clinical outcome and plasmatic protein signature. This approach might support the future development of individualized treatment in VTE., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest P.S.W. has received research funding outside the present study from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer Healthcare, Daiichi Sankyo Europe and Novartis and received outside the present study honoraria for lectures or consulting from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer HealthCare, Evonik, AstraZeneca and Sanofi Aventis. P.S.W. is principal investigator of the DIASyM research core (BMBF 161L0217A). SH and KL are employees of Bayer AG. H.T.C. received research funding outside the present study from Bayer and received outside the present study honoraria for consultation and/or advisory board participation, from Bayer, Alveron, Galapagos, Portola and Alexion. All reimbursements were transferred to the CARIM institute. HtC is a shareholder with Coagulation Profile, a university spinoff small diagnostic company not involved in the present study., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. 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.)

Background: A diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) is frequently made in elderly patients who present with comorbidities, especially hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and obesity. It is unknown to what extent the presence of these comorbidities affects the response to PAH therapies and whether risk stratification predicts outcome in patients with comorbidities., Methods: We assessed the database of COMPERA, a European pulmonary hypertension registry, to determine changes after initiation of PAH therapy in WHO functional class (FC), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal fragment of probrain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP), and mortality risk assessed by a 4-strata model in patients with IPAH and no comorbidities, 1-2 comorbidities and 3-4 comorbidities., Results: The analysis was based on 1,120 IPAH patients (n = 208 [19%] without comorbidities, n = 641 [57%] with 1-2 comorbidities, and n = 271 [24%] with 3-4 comorbidities). Improvements in FC, 6MWD, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, and mortality risk from baseline to first follow-up were significantly larger in patients with no comorbidities than in patients with comorbidities, while they were not significantly different in patients with 1-2 and 3-4 comorbidities. The 4-strata risk tool predicted survival in patients without comorbidities as well as in patients with 1-2 or 3-4 comorbidities., Conclusions: Our data suggest that patients with IPAH and comorbidities benefit from PAH medication with improvements in FC, 6MWD, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, and mortality risk, albeit to a lesser extent than patients without comorbidities. The 4-strata risk tool predicted outcome in patients with IPAH irrespective of the presence of comorbidities., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Following acute pulmonary embolism (PE), a relevant number of patients experience decreased exercise capacity which can be associated with disturbed pulmonary perfusion. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) shows several patterns typical for disturbed pulmonary perfusion. Research question: We aimed to examine whether CPET can also provide prognostic information in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Study Design and Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective chart review in Germany between 2002 and 2020. Patients with CTEPH were included if they had ≥6 months of follow-up and complete CPET and hemodynamic data. Symptom-limited CPET was performed using a cycle ergometer (ramp or Jones protocol). The association of anthropometric data, comorbidities, symptoms, lung function, and echocardiographic, hemodynamic, and CPET parameters with survival was examined. Mortality prediction models were calculated by Cox regression with backward selection. Results: 345 patients (1532 person-years) were included; 138 underwent surgical treatment (pulmonary endarterectomy or balloon pulmonary angioplasty) and 207 received only non-surgical treatment. During follow-up (median 3.5 years), 78 patients died. The death rate per 1000 person-years was 24.9 and 74.2 in the surgical and non-surgical groups, respectively (p < 0.001). In age- and sex-adjusted Cox regression analyses, CPET parameters including peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak, reflecting cardiopulmonary exercise capacity) were prognostic in the non-surgical group but not in the surgical group. In mortality prediction models, age, sex, VO2peak (% predicted), and carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (% predicted) showed significant prognostic relevance in both the overall cohort and the non-surgical group. In the non-surgical group, Kaplan−Meier analysis showed that patients with VO2peak below 53.4% predicted (threshold identified by receiver operating characteristic analysis) had increased mortality (p = 0.007). Interpretation: The additional measurement of cardiopulmonary exercise capacity by CPET allows a more precise prognostic evaluation in patients with CTEPH. CPET might therefore be helpful for risk-adapted treatment of CTEPH.

Background: Among patients meeting diagnostic criteria for idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), there is an emerging lung phenotype characterised by a low diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and a smoking history. The present study aimed at a detailed characterisation of these patients., Methods: We analysed data from two European pulmonary hypertension registries, COMPERA (launched in 2007) and ASPIRE (from 2001 onwards), to identify patients diagnosed with IPAH and a lung phenotype defined by a DLCO of less than 45% predicted and a smoking history. We compared patient characteristics, response to therapy, and survival of these patients to patients with classical IPAH (defined by the absence of cardiopulmonary comorbidities and a DLCO of 45% or more predicted) and patients with pulmonary hypertension due to lung disease (group 3 pulmonary hypertension)., Findings: The analysis included 128 (COMPERA) and 185 (ASPIRE) patients with classical IPAH, 268 (COMPERA) and 139 (ASPIRE) patients with IPAH and a lung phenotype, and 910 (COMPERA) and 375 (ASPIRE) patients with pulmonary hypertension due to lung disease. Most patients with IPAH and a lung phenotype had normal or near normal spirometry, a severe reduction in DLCO, with the majority having no or a mild degree of parenchymal lung involvement on chest computed tomography. Patients with IPAH and a lung phenotype (median age, 72 years [IQR 65-78] in COMPERA and 71 years [65-76] in ASPIRE) and patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension (median age 71 years [65-77] in COMPERA and 69 years [63-74] in ASPIRE) were older than those with classical IPAH (median age, 45 years [32-60] in COMPERA and 52 years [38-64] in ASPIRE; p&lt;0·0001 for IPAH with a lung phenotype vs classical IPAH in both registries). While 99 (77%) patients in COMPERA and 133 (72%) patients in ASPIRE with classical IPAH were female, there was a lower proportion of female patients in the IPAH and a lung phenotype cohort (95 [35%] COMPERA; 75 [54%] ASPIRE), which was similar to group 3 pulmonary hypertension (336 [37%] COMPERA; 148 [39%] ASPIRE]). Response to pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies at first follow-up was available from COMPERA. Improvements in WHO functional class were observed in 54% of patients with classical IPAH, 26% of patients with IPAH with a lung phenotype, and 22% of patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension (p&lt;0·0001 for classical IPAH vs IPAH and a lung phenotype, and p=0·194 for IPAH and a lung phenotype vs group 3 pulmonary hypertension); median improvements in 6 min walking distance were 63 m, 25 m, and 23 m for these cohorts respectively (p=0·0015 for classical IPAH vs IPAH and a lung phenotype, and p=0·64 for IPAH and a lung phenotype vs group 3 pulmonary hypertension), and median reductions in N-terminal-pro-brain-natriuretic-peptide were 58%, 27%, and 16% respectively (p=0·0043 for classical IPAH vs IPAH and a lung phenotype, and p=0·14 for IPAH and a lung phenotype vs group 3 pulmonary hypertension). In both registries, survival of patients with IPAH and a lung phenotype (1 year, 89% in COMPERA and 79% in ASPIRE; 5 years, 31% in COMPERA and 21% in ASPIRE) and group 3 pulmonary hypertension (1 year, 78% in COMPERA and 64% in ASPIRE; 5 years, 26% in COMPERA and 18% in ASPIRE) was worse than survival of patients with classical IPAH (1 year, 95% in COMPERA and 98% in ASPIRE; 5 years, 84% in COMPERA and 80% in ASPIRE; p&lt;0·0001 for IPAH with a lung phenotype vs classical IPAH in both registries)., Interpretation: A cohort of patients meeting diagnostic criteria for IPAH with a distinct, presumably smoking-related form of pulmonary hypertension accompanied by a low DLCO, resemble patients with pulmonary hypertension due to lung disease rather than classical IPAH. These observations have pathogenetic, diagnostic, and therapeutic implications, which require further exploration., Funding: COMPERA is funded by unrestricted grants from Acceleron, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and OMT. The ASPIRE Registry is supported by Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MMH received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer. KD has received research funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), UK and The Wellcome Trust, UK. RAL has received honoraria and research grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. KMO has received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. DH has received travel compensation from Shire. DP has received fees for consultations from Actelion, Amgen, Aspen, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Takeda and Viatris. EG has received fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. GS has received honoraria for lectures or consultancy for Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. CDV has received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. HG reports personal fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squib, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. OD has or has had a consultancy relationship or has received research funding from 4 D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Bristol Myers Squib, ChemoAb, EpiPharm, Ergonex, espeRare foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva, Janssen, Lilly, medac, MedImmune, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Serodapharm, and Sinoxa in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications including PAH; and reports a patent mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (US8247389, EP2331143). JSRG has received fees for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Aerovate, Bayer, Complexia, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. MD reports research grants from Actelion/J&J; speaker and consultant fees from Bayer, MSD, Acceleron, AOP, Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work; and being a holder of the Janssen Chair for Pulmonary Hypertension at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. D-HP has received lecture fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. HAG has received honorariums for consultations or speaking at conferences from Bayer HealthCare, Actelion, Pfizer, Janssen, Merck/MSD, and Gossamer; is member of advisory boards for Acceleron, Bayer HealthCare AG, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Actelion, Merck/MSD, Janssen, and Gossamer; and has received public grants from the German Research Foundation, Excellence Cluster Cardiopulmonary Institute, State Government of Hessen, and the German Ministry for Education and Research. RE has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. HKa has received honoraria for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen. H-JK has received fees from Actelion, Anamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Dräger, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Heinen + Löwenstein, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Weinmann, Philips Healthcare, Pulmonx, ResMed, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sapio Life, Weinmann. DS received fees for lectures, consulting, or research support to institution from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. JB received grants from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche; and honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi/Genzyme. KM has received fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. TJL has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultation from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. HW received fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche. H-JS has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and MSD. MHe has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Nycomed, Roche and Servier. DD declares honoraria for lectures or consultancy from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier and Vifor. IT has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. AV-N reports receiving fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. SU reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen, MSD, and Orpha-Swiss outside of the submitted work. HKl has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. MC reports honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma and Roche Pharma, and for serving on advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim. SE has received honoraria for lectures or consultations from Actelion, MSD, Bayer, Acceleron, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Pulmox, Boston Scientific, and Boehringer Ingelheim. K-HS has received fees for lectures and educational events from Abbott, Janssen, and MSD. AJS has received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR; has undertaken consultancy work and received honoraria for lectures from Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has undertaken consultancy work for General Electric. AART is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281) and has received research grants to their institution from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and GlaxoSmithKline. CAE has received honoraria for lectures or consultations from Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and MSD. SR has received fees for lectures or consultations from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squib, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, and Vifor; and research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Actelion, Bayer Janssen and Novartis. RC has received honoraria for lectures or consultations from Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and MSD. DGK has received honoraria for lectures or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and MSD; and research grants to institution from Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. MHa has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerlinChemie, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background:  The World Conference on PH recommended differentiation of isolated postcapillary (Ipc) and combined post- and precapillary (Cpc) PH according to pulmonary vascular resistance alone. The aim of this study was the haemodynamic and functional characterization of patients diagnosed IpcPH and CpcPH according to the current recommendation of the latest World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) with an exploratory data analysis., Methods:  We evaluated all consecutive patients presenting at the PH outpatient clinic of Mission Medical Hospital from 2008-2015. All received a complete diagnostic work-up according to the guidelines. We analyzed data of patients with mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP  > 15 mmHg. We compared anthropometric, hemodynamic and functional data of six-minute walking test (6 MWT), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and echocardiography of patients with IpcPH and CpcPH., Results:  Out of 726 patients 58 showed a postcapillary PH: IpcPH: n = 20; CpcPH: n = 38. Patients with IpcPH had a significantly lower mPAP and PVR than patients with CpcPH. Cardiac index was lower in the Cpc-PH group compared to the IpcPH group. Functional capacity did not differ. CpcPH patients showed a higher right/left atrial area (RA/LA)-ratio., Discussion and Conclusion: Although CpcPH patients showed higher values of mPAP and PVR functional capacity was not worse than in patients with IpcPH. In patients with PH due to left heart disease an elevated RA/LA ratio may indicate CpcPH and invasive diagnostic work-up should be considered., Competing Interests: Matthias Held erklärt, dass er Beraterhonorare von Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, und MSD erhalten hat und Vortragshonorare von Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Santis erhalten hat.Gülmisal Güder erklärt, dass sie Fördermittel des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, der Deutschen Herzstiftung und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie erhalten und war beratend bzw. als Referentin für die Firmen AstraZeneca, Abiomed, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Orion GmbH, Pfizer und Vifor Pharma Germany tätig. Mit der aktuellen Studie gibt es keine Interessenkonflikte.Franziska Joa erklärt, dass sie Vortragshonorare von Berlin-Chemie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Johnson and Johnson erhalten hat.Elena Pfeuffer-Jovic erklärt, Reisekostenunterstützung von Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis und OMT erhalten zu haben.Simon Weiner, Jörg Hoffmann und Johanna Walthelm-Hösel erklären keine Interessenkonflikte zu haben., (Thieme. 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.)

Patients suffering from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) are susceptible to deadly secondary fungal infections such as COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis and COVID-19-associated mucormycosis. Despite this clinical observation, direct experimental evidence for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-driven alterations of antifungal immunity is scarce. Using an ex-vivo whole blood stimulation assay, we challenged blood from twelve COVID-19 patients with Aspergillus fumigatus and Rhizopus arrhizus antigens and studied the expression of activation, maturation, and exhaustion markers, as well as cytokine secretion. Compared to healthy controls, T-helper cells from COVID-19 patients displayed increased expression levels of the exhaustion marker PD-1 and weakened A. fumigatus - and R. arrhizus -induced activation. While baseline secretion of proinflammatory cytokines was massively elevated, whole blood from COVID-19 patients elicited diminished release of T-cellular (e.g., IFN-γ, IL-2) and innate immune cell-derived (e.g., CXCL9, CXCL10) cytokines in response to A. fumigatus and R. arrhizus antigens. Additionally, samples from COVID-19 patients showed deficient granulocyte activation by mold antigens and reduced fungal killing capacity of neutrophils. These features of weakened anti-mold immune responses were largely decoupled from COVID-19 severity, the time elapsed since diagnosis of COVID-19, and recent corticosteroid uptake, suggesting that impaired anti-mold defense is a common denominator of the underlying SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, these results expand our understanding of the immune predisposition to post-viral mold infections and could inform future studies of immunotherapeutic strategies to prevent and treat fungal superinfections in COVID-19 patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Tappe, Lauruschkat, Strobel, Pantaleón García, Kurzai, Rebhan, Kraus, Pfeuffer-Jovic, Bussemer, Possler, Held, Hünniger, Kniemeyer, Schäuble, Brakhage, Panagiotou, White, Einsele, Löffler and Wurster.)

Background: Risk stratification plays an essential role in the management of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The current European guidelines propose a three-stratum model to categorise risk as low, intermediate or high, based on the expected 1-year mortality. However, with this model, most patients are categorised as intermediate risk. We investigated a modified approach based on four risk categories, with intermediate risk subdivided into intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk., Methods: We analysed data from the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA), a European pulmonary hypertension registry, and calculated risk at diagnosis and first follow-up based on World Health Organization functional class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and serum levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), using refined cut-off values. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses, log-rank testing and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Data from 1655 patients with PAH were analysed. Using the three-stratum model, most patients were classified as intermediate risk (76.0% at baseline and 63.9% at first follow-up). The refined four-stratum risk model yielded a more nuanced separation and predicted long-term survival, especially at follow-up assessment. Changes in risk from baseline to follow-up were observed in 31.1% of the patients with the three-stratum model and in 49.2% with the four-stratum model. These changes, including those between the intermediate-low and intermediate-high strata, were associated with changes in long-term mortality risk., Conclusions: Modified risk stratification using a four-stratum model based on refined cut-off levels for functional class, 6MWD and BNP/NT-proBNP was more sensitive to prognostically relevant changes in risk than the original three-stratum model., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.M. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflict of interest: C. Pausch has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: K.M. Olsson has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: D. Huscher has received travel compensation from Shire. Conflict of interest: D. Pittrow has received fees for consultations from Actelion, Amgen, Aspen, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Takeda and Viatris. Conflict of interest: E. Grünig has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: G. Staehler has received honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy for Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Novartis and Pfizer. Conflict of interest: C.D. Vizza has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: H. Gall reports personal fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: O. Distler has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding from 4 D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, BMS, ChemoAb, EpiPharm, Ergonex, espeRare foundation, GSK, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva, Janssen, Lilly, medac, MedImmune, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Serodapharm and Sinoxa in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications including PAH; and has a patent mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis licensed. Conflict of interest: C. Opitz has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.S.R. Gibbs has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Aerovate, Bayer, Complexia, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: M. Delcroix reports research grants from Actelion/J&J, speaker and consultant fees from Bayer, MSD, Acceleron, AOP and Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work; and is holder of the Janssen Chair for Pulmonary Hypertension at the KU Leuven. Conflict of interest: H.A. Ghofrani has received honoraria for consultations and/or speaking at conferences from Bayer HealthCare AG, Actelion, Encysive, Pfizer, Ergonex, Lilly and Novartis; is member of advisory boards for Acceleron, Bayer HealthCare AG, Pfizer, GSK, Actelion, Lilly, Merck, Encysive and Ergonex; has received governmental grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), Excellence Cluster Cardiopulmonary Research (ECCPS), State Government of Hessen (LOEWE) and the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). Conflict of interest: D-H. Park has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Ewert has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: H. Kaemmerer has received honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy from Actelion, Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen. Conflict of interest: H-J. Kabitz has received fees from Löwenstein Medical, Weinmann, Philips Respironics, ResMed, Vivisol, Sapio Life and Sanofi-Genzyme. Conflict of interest: D. Skowasch received fees for lectures and/or consulting and/or research support (paid to institution) from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflict of interest: J. Behr received grants from Actelion, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi/Genzyme. Conflict of interest: K. Milger has received fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Conflict of interest: M. Halank has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerlinChemie, GSK, Janssen and Novartis. Conflict of interest: H. Wilkens received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche. Conflict of interest: H-J. Seyfarth has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen and MSD. Conflict of interest: M. Held has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Nycomed, Roche and Servier. Conflict of interest: D. Dumitrescu declares honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier and Vifor. Conflict of interest: I. Tsangaris has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, ELPEN, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: A. Vonk-Noordegraaf reports receiving fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflict of interest: S. Ulrich reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen and MSD outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: H. Klose has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: M. Claussen reports honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Roche Pharma, and for serving on advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim. Conflict of interest: T.J. Lange has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultation from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflict of interest: S. Rosenkranz has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics and Vifor; research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Actelion, Bayer Janssen and Novartis., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Background: The prognostic value of improvement endpoints that have been used in clinical trials of treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) needs to be further investigated., Methods: Using the COMPERA database, we evaluated the prognostic value of improvements in functional class (FC) and absolute or relative improvements in 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and N-terminal fragment of pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). In addition, we investigated multicomponent endpoints based on prespecified improvements in FC, 6MWD and NT-proBNP that have been used in recent PAH trials. Finally, we assessed the predictive value of improvements determined by risk stratification tools. The effects of changes from baseline to first follow-up (3-12 months after initiation of PAH therapy) on consecutive survival were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis with Log-Rank testing and Cox proportional hazard analyses., Results: All analyses were based on 596 patients with newly diagnosed PAH for whom complete data were available at baseline and first follow-up. Improvements in FC were associated with improved survival, whereas absolute or relative improvements in 6MWD had no predictive value. For NT-proBNP, absolute declines conferred no prognostic information while relative declines by ≥35% were associated with better survival. Improvements in multicomponent endpoints were associated with improved survival and the same was found for risk stratification tools., Conclusion: While sole improvements in 6MWD and NT-proBNP had minor prognostic relevance, improvements in multicomponent endpoints and risk stratification tools based on FC, 6MWD, and NT-proBNP were associated with improved survival. These tools should be further explored as outcome measures in PAH trials., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since 2015, the European pulmonary hypertension guidelines recommend the use of combination therapy in most patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, it is unclear to what extent this treatment strategy is adopted in clinical practice and if it is associated with improved long-term survival., Methods: We analysed data from COMPERA, a large European pulmonary hypertension registry, to assess temporal trends in the use of combination therapy and survival of patients with newly diagnosed PAH between 2010 and 2019. For survival analyses, we looked at annualised data and at cumulated data comparing the periods 2010-2014 and 2015-2019., Results: A total of 2531 patients were included. The use of early combination therapy (within 3 months after diagnosis) increased from 10.0% in patients diagnosed with PAH in 2010 to 25.0% in patients diagnosed with PAH in 2019. The proportion of patients receiving combination therapy 1 year after diagnosis increased from 27.7% to 46.3%. When comparing the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 periods, 1-year survival estimates were similar (89.0% (95% CI 87.2-90.9%) and 90.8% (95% CI 89.3-92.4%), respectively), whereas there was a slight but nonsignificant improvement in 3-year survival estimates (67.8% (95% CI 65.0-70.8%) and 70.5% (95% CI 67.8-73.4%), respectively)., Conclusions: The use of combination therapy increased from 2010 to 2019, but most patients still received monotherapy. Survival rates at 1 year after diagnosis did not change over time. Future studies need to determine if the observed trend suggesting improved 3-year survival rates can be confirmed., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: M.M. Hoeper has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflicts of interest: C. Pausch has no disclosures. Conflicts of interest: E. Grünig has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: G. Staehler has received honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy for Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer. Conflicts of interest: D. Huscher has received consulting fees from Actelion. Conflicts of interest: D. Pittrow has received fees for consultations from Actelion, Amgen, Aspen, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, Takeda and Viatris. Conflicts of interest: K.M. Olsson has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: C.D. Vizza has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: H. Gall reports personal fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OMT, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: O. Distler has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding from 4D Science, Actelion, Active Biotec, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, BMS, ChemoAb, EpiPharm, Ergonex, EspeRare Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Inventiva, Janssen, Lilly, medac, MedImmune, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Serodapharm and Sinoxa, in the area of potential treatments of scleroderma and its complications including PAH; in addition, the author has a patent “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” licensed. Conflicts of interest: C. Opitz has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer. Conflicts of interest: J.S.R. Gibbs has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, Aerovate, Bayer, Complexia, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: M. Delcroix reports research grants from Actelion/J&J, speaker and consultant fees from Bayer, MSD, Acceleron, AOP and Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work; and is holder of the Janssen Chair for Pulmonary Hypertension at the KU Leuven. Conflicts of interest: H.A. Ghofrani has received honoraria for consultations and/or speaking at conferences from Bayer HealthCare AG, Actelion, Encysive, Pfizer, Ergonex, Lilly and Novartis; is member of advisory boards for Acceleron, Bayer HealthCare AG, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Actelion, Lilly, Merck, Encysive and Ergonex; and has also received governmental grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG), Excellence Cluster Cardiopulmonary Research (ECCPS), State Government of Hessen (LOEWE) and the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). Conflicts of interest: S. Rosenkranz has received fees for lectures and/or consultations from Abbott, Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics and Vifor; research grants to institution from AstraZeneca, Actelion, Bayer Janssen and Novartis. Conflicts of interest: D-H. Park has nothing to disclose. Conflicts of interest: R. Ewert has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: H. Kaemmerer has received honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy from Actelion, BMS and Janssen. Conflicts of interest: T.J. Lange has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultation from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: H-J. Kabitz has received fees from Löwenstein Medical, Weinmann, Philips Respironics, ResMed, Vivisol, Sapio Life and Sanofi-Genzyme. Conflicts of interest: D. Skowasch received fees for lectures and/or consulting and/or research support to institution from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflicts of interest: A. Skride reports no conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest: M. Claussen reports honoraria for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH and Roche Pharma, and for serving on advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim. Conflicts of interest: J. Behr received grants from Actelion, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi/Genzyme. Conflicts of interest: K. Milger has received fees from Actelion, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Conflicts of interest: M. Halank has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BerlinChemie, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and Novartis. Conflicts of interest: H. Wilkens received personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche. Conflicts of interest: H-J. Seyfarth has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen and MSD. Conflicts of interest: M. Held has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Nycomed, Roche and Servier. Conflicts of interest: D. Dumitrescu declares honoraria for lectures and/or consultancy from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Servier. Conflicts of interest: I. Tsangaris has received fees from Actelion, Bayer, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. Conflicts of interest: A. Vonk-Noordegraaf reports receiving fees for lectures and/or consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD and Pfizer. Conflicts of interest: S. Ulrich reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen and MSD outside the submitted work. Conflicts of interest: H. Klose has received speaker fees and honoraria for consultations from Actelion, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and United Therapeutics., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

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., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is common in congenital heart disease (CHD). Because clinical-trial data on PAH associated with CHD (PAH-CHD) remain limited, registry data on the long-term course are essential. This analysis aimed to update information from the COMPERA-CHD registry on management strategies based on real-world data., Methods: The prospective international pulmonary hypertension registry COMPERA has since 2007 enrolled more than 10,000 patients. COMPERA-CHD is a sub-registry for patients with PAH-CHD., Results: A total of 769 patients with PAH-CHD from 62 specialized centers in 12 countries were included into COMPERA-CHD from January 2007 through September 2020. At the last follow-up in 09/2020, patients [mean age 45.3±16.8 years; 512 (66%) female] had either post-tricuspid shunts (n=359; 46.7%), pre-tricuspid shunts (n=249; 32.4%), complex CHD (n=132; 17.2%), congenital left heart or aortic valve or aortic disease (n=9; 1.3%), or miscellaneous CHD (n=20; 2.6%). The mean 6-minute walking distance was 369±121 m, and 28.2%, 56.0%, and 3.8% were in WHO functional class I/II, III or IV, respectively (12.0% unknown). Compared with the previously published COMPERA-CHD data, after 21 months of follow-up, the number of included PAH-CHD patients increased by 91 (13.4%). Within this group the number of Eisenmenger patients rose by 39 (16.3%), the number of "Non-Eisenmenger PAH" patients by 45 (26.9%). Currently, among the 674 patients from the PAH-CHD group with at least one follow-up, 450 (66.8%) received endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), 416 (61.7%) PDE-5 inhibitors, 85 (12.6%) prostacyclin analogues, and 36 (5.3%) the sGC stimulator riociguat. While at first inclusion in the COMPERA-CHD registry, treatment was predominantly monotherapy (69.3%), this has shifted to favoring combination therapy in the current group (53%). For the first time, the nature, frequency, and treatment of significant comorbidities requiring supportive care and medication are described., Conclusions: Analyzing "real life data" from the international COMPERA-CHD registry, we present a comprehensive overview about current management modalities and treatment concepts in PAH-CHD. There was an trend towards more aggressive treatment strategies and combination therapies. In the future, particular attention must be directed to the "Non-Eisenmenger PAH" group and to patients with complex CHD, including Fontan patients., Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, study identifier: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01347216., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/cdt-21-351). The series “Current Management Aspects in Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ACHD): Part IV” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. Dr. DH reports non-financial support from Actelion, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Shire, outside the submitted work; Dr. DP reports personal fees from Actelion, Biogen, Aspen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; Dr. MD reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. HAG reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; Dr. MG reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer and GSK, outside the submitted work; Dr. MMH reports personal fees from Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, MSD and Pfizer, outside the submitted work; Dr. CDV reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; Dr. RE reports personal fees from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, OMT, Bayer, and Berlin Chemie; grants from Actelion and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Dr. MH reports grants and personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Novartis and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. MH reports personal fees from Acceleron, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BERLIN CHEMIE, GSK, MSD, Novartis and OMT, outside the submitted work; Dr. HW reports personal fees from Action, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche, outside the submitted work; Dr. DS reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, and GSK, outside the submitted work; Dr. LS reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, and MSD, outside the submitted work; Dr. SU reports grants from Swiss National Science Foundation, Zurich Lung, Swiss Lung, and Orpha Swiss, grants and personal fees from Actelion SA/Johnson & Johnson, Switzerland, and MSD Switzerland, outside the submitted work; Dr. TJL reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, MSD, and OMT GmbH, outside the submitted work; Dr. LB reports personal fees from Actelion, outside the submitted work; Dr. MC reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH, Roche Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work; Dr. HW reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. EG reports personal fees from Actelion, Janssen, Bayer, MSD, Bial, OrPha Swiss GmbH, OMT and Medscape, outside the submitted work; Dr. SR reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, MSD, and United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.)

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: The World Conference on PH recommended differentiation of isolated postcapillary (Ipc) and combined post- and precapillary (Cpc) PH according to pulmonary vascular resistance alone. The aim of this study was the haemodynamic and functional characterization of patients diagnosed IpcPH and CpcPH according to the current recommendation of the latest World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) with an exploratory data analysis., Methods: We evaluated all consecutive patients presenting at the PH outpatient clinic of Mission Medical Hospital from 2008-2015. All received a complete diagnostic work-up according to the guidelines. We analyzed data of patients with mPAP≥ 25 mmHg and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) > 15 mmHg. We compared anthropometric, hemodynamic and functional data of six-minute walking test (6 MWT), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and echocardiography of patients with IpcPH and CpcPH., Results: Out of 726 patients 58 showed a postcapillary PH: IpcPH: n = 20; CpcPH: n = 38. Patients with IpcPH had a significantly lower mPAP and PVR than patients with CpcPH. Cardiac index was lower in the Cpc-PH group compared to the IpcPH group. Functional capacity did not differ. CpcPH patients showed a higher right/left atrial area (RA/LA)-ratio., Discussion and Conclusion: Although CpcPH patients showed higher values of mPAP and PVR functional capacity was not worse than in patients with IpcPH. In patients with PH due to left heart disease an elevated RA/LA ratio may indicate CpcPH and invasive diagnostic work-up should be considered., Competing Interests: Matthias Held erklärt, dass er Beraterhonorare von Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, und MSD erhalten hat und Vortragshonorare von Astra Zeneca, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Santis erhalten hat.Gülmisal Güder erklärt, dass sie Fördermittel des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung, der Deutschen Herzstiftung und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie erhalten und war beratend bzw. als Referentin für die Firmen AstraZeneca, Abiomed, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Orion GmbH, Pfizer und Vifor Pharma Germany tätig. Mit der aktuellen Studie gibt es keine Interessenkonflikte.Franziska Joa erklärt, dass sie Vortragshonorare von Berlin- Chemie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Actelion, Johnson and Johnson erhalten hat.Elena Pfeuffer-Jovic erklärt, Reisekostenunterstützung von Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis und OMT erhalten zu haben.Simon Weiner, Jörg Hoffmann und Johanna Walthelm-Hösel erklären keine Interessenkonflikte zu haben., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition., Research Question: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?, Study Design and Methods: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH)., Results: The population included incident patients with moderate PH in COPD (n = 68), with severe PH in COPD (n = 307), and with IPAH (n = 489). Patients with PH in COPD were older, predominantly male, and treated mainly with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Despite similar hemodynamic impairment, patients with PH in COPD achieved a worse 6-min walking distance (6MWD) and showed a more advanced World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC). Transplant-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in the IPAH group than in the PH in COPD group (IPAH: 94%, 75%, and 55% vs PH in COPD: 86%, 55%, and 38%; P = .004). Risk factors for poor outcomes in PH in COPD were male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). In patients with severe PH in COPD, improvements in 6MWD by ≥ 30 m or improvements in WHO FC after initiation of medical therapy were associated with better outcomes., Interpretation: Patients with PH in COPD were functionally more impaired and had a poorer outcome than patients with IPAH. Predictors of death in the PH in COPD group were sex, 6MWD, and PVR. Our data raise the hypothesis that some patients with severe PH in COPD may benefit from PH treatment. Randomized controlled studies are necessary to explore this hypothesis further., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01347216; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension (WSPH) in 2018 recommended new definitions of pulmonary hypertension (PH). We investigated the impact of the updated definition on prevalence of PH due to left heart disease (PH-LHD)., Methods: The data of right heart catheterizations in patients with suspected PH-LHD between January 2008 and July 2015 was retrospectively analyzed applying different definitions. The number of patients diagnosed by the updated WSPH hemodynamic criteria of a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) > 20 mmHg was compared to the number of patients using mPAP ≥ 25 mmHg. The differentiation between patients with isolated post-capillary (Ipc) and combined post-capillary and pre-capillary (Cpc) PH was analyzed comparing the ESC/ERS guidelines, the recommendation of Cologne Consensus Conference (CCC) and WSPH., Results: Of the 726 patients with a suspected PH, 58 patients met the diagnostic criteria of the ESC/ERS guidelines for PH-LHD with 32.8% Ipc-cases, 34.4% Cpc-PH-cases and 32.8% unclassifiable cases. Overall, 58 patients were diagnosed by the CCC criteria, with 34.5% classified as Cpc-PH and 65.5% as Icp-PH. Using the criteria of WSPH, the number of PH-LHD rose by one patient. According to the new definition, 64.4% of the patients were classified as Cpc-PH and had a significantly higher right to left atrial area (RA/LA) ratio than Ipc-PH patients., Conclusion: Applying the new recommendation, the number of diagnosed patients with PH-LHD increases marginally. There is, however, a relevant shift in the number of Cpc-PH cases. An elevated RA/LA ratio might help to identify patients for invasive diagnostic work-up., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Pfeuffer-Jovic reports fees for travel/accommodation from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and OMT, outside the submitted work. Simon Weiner has nothing to disclose. Prof. Dr. Wilkens has received personal fees for lectures and/or advisory board activities from Actelion, Janssen, Bayer Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Pfizer and Roche. Delia Schmitt has nothing to disclose. Prof. Dr. Frantz got support from the BMBF, Abiomed, Amgen, Akzea, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Braun, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Siemens, Zoll. PD Dr. Held reports grants from Actelion, honoraria for lectures from Actelion, Bayer HealthCare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, honoraria for advisory board activities from Actelion, Bayer HealthCare, GSK, MSD, and participation in clinical trials of Actelion, Bayer HealthCare, GSK, Pfizer, United Therapeutics, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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., Interpretation: 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., Funding: German Center for Lung Research, Roche Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JB reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biogen, Galapagos, Promedior, Roche, and the German Center for Lung Research (DZL). SB reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Bayer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Merck Serono; and non-financial support from Teva, Gilead, Lucane Pharma, Actelion, CSL Behring, and Vertex. FB reports personal fees for consultancy, lecturing, and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. MC reports grants from DZL. JHF reports personal fees, grants, and non-financial support from Roche; and personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim. AG reports grants from DZL, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche. MH reports grants from Actelion; honoraria for lectures from Actelion, Bayer Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, OMT, Pfizer, and Roche; honoraria for advisory boards from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, and Roche; and honoraria for clinical trials from Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics. NKn reports personal fees from Roche. DK reports personal fees from Roche; and personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim. MK reports grants from DZL; and grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche. AP reports grants from DZL; grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, Pliant, Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, and Nitto Denko; personal fees from Amgen; and non-financial support from Galapagos. KFR reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Roche, and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals. TW reports grants from Roche; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Novartis. HWil reports personal fees for lectures or consultations from Actelion–Janssen, Bayer, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Pfizer, and Roche. HWir reports lecture fees from Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. 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.)

At the 2020 "Luftschlösser" (castles in the air) conference, experts from a wide range of pneumological fields discussed technical innovations in pneumology, which can be seen in many different areas of the field, including e-health, screening, diagnostics, and therapy. They contribute to substantial advancements ranging from the innovative use of diagnostic tools to novel treatments for chronic lung diseases. Artificial intelligence enables broader screening, which can be expected to have beneficial effects on disease progression and overall prognosis. There is still a high demand for clinical trials to investigate the usefulness and risk-benefit ratio. Open questions remain especially about the quality and utility of medical apps in an inadequately regulated market. This article weighs the pros and cons of technical innovations in specific subspecialties of pneumology based on the lively exchange of ideas among various pneumological experts., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

The term idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) is used to categorize patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension of unknown origin. There is considerable variability in the clinical presentation of these patients. Using data from the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension, we performed a cluster analysis of 841 patients with IPAH based on age, sex, diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO; <45% vs ≥45% predicted), smoking status, and presence of comorbidities (obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and diabetes mellitus). A hierarchical agglomerative clustering algorithm was performed using Ward's minimum variance method. The clusters were analyzed in terms of baseline characteristics; survival; and response to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy, expressed as changes from baseline to follow-up in functional class, 6-minute walking distance, cardiac biomarkers, and risk. Three clusters were identified: Cluster 1 (n = 106; 12.6%): median age 45 years, 76% females, no comorbidities, mostly never smokers, DLCO ≥45%; Cluster 2 (n = 301; 35.8%): median age 75 years, 98% females, frequent comorbidities, no smoking history, DLCO mostly ≥45%; and Cluster 3 (n = 434; 51.6%): median age 72 years, 72% males, frequent comorbidities, history of smoking, and low DLCO. Patients in Cluster 1 had a better response to PAH treatment than patients in the 2 other clusters. Survival over 5 years was 84.6% in Cluster 1, 59.2% in Cluster 2, and 42.2% in Cluster 3 (unadjusted p < 0.001 for comparison between all groups). The population of patients diagnosed with IPAH is heterogenous. This cluster analysis identified distinct phenotypes, which differed in clinical presentation, response to therapy, and survival., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a common complication in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), aggravating the natural, post-operative, or post-interventional course of the underlying anomaly. The various CHDs differ substantially in characteristics, functionality, and clinical outcomes among each other and compared with other diseases with pulmonary hypertension., Objective: To describe current management strategies and outcomes for adults with PH in relation to different types of CHD based on real-world data., Methods and Results: COMPERA (Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension) is a prospective, international PH registry comprising, at the time of data analysis, >8200 patients with various forms of PH. Here, we analyzed a subgroup of 680 patients with PH due to CHD, who were included between 2007 and 2018 in 49 specialized centers for PH and/or CHD located in 11 European countries. At enrollment, the patients´ median age was 44 years (67% female), and patients had either pre-tricuspid shunts, post-tricuspid shunts, complex CHD, congenital left heart or aortic disease, or miscellaneous other types of CHD. Upon inclusion, targeted therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) included endothelin receptor antagonists, PDE-5 inhibitors, prostacyclin analogues, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators. Eighty patients with Eisenmenger syndrome were treatment-naïve. While at inclusion the primary PAH treatment for the cohort was monotherapy (70% of patients), with 30% of the patients on combination therapy, after a median observation time of 45.3 months, the number of patients on combination therapy had increased significantly, to 50%. The use of oral anticoagulants or antiplatelets was dependent on the underlying diagnosis or comorbidities. In the entire COMPERA-CHD cohort, after follow-up and receiving targeted PAH therapy ( n = 511), 91 patients died over the course of a 5-year follow up. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimate for CHD associated PH was significantly better than that for idiopathic PAH (76% vs. 54%; p < 0.001). Within the CHD associated PH group, survival estimates differed particularly depending on the underlying diagnosis and treatment status., Conclusions: In COMPERA-CHD, the overall survival of patients with CHD associated PH was dependent on the underlying diagnosis and treatment status, but was significantly better as than that for idiopathic PAH. Nevertheless, overall survival of patients with PAH due to CHD was still markedly reduced compared with survival of patients with other types of CHD, despite an increasing number of patients on PAH-targeted combination therapy., Competing Interests: COMPERA is supported by an educational grant from Bayer, GSK, OMT and Actelion. The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to the study.

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.)

Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a severe rheumatic disease of the interstitial tissue, in which heart and lung involvement can lead to disease-specific mortality. Our study tests the hypothesis that in addition to established prognostic factors, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters, particularly peak oxygen uptake (peakVO 2 ) and ventilation/carbon dioxide (VE/VCO 2 )-slope, can predict survival in patients with SSc., Subjects and Methods: We retrospectively assessed 210 patients (80.9% female) in 6 centres over 10 years with pulmonary testing and CPET. Survival was analysed with Cox regression analysis (adjusted for age and gender) by age, comorbidity (Charlson-Index), body weight, body-mass index, extensive interstitial lung disease, pulmonary artery pressure (measured by echocardiography and invasively), and haemodynamic, pulmonary and CPET parameters., Results: Five- and ten-year survival of SSc patients was 93.8 and 86.9%, respectively. There was no difference in survival between patients with diffuse (dcSSc) and limited cutaneous manifestation (lcSSc; p = 0.3). Pulmonary and CPET parameters were significantly impaired. Prognosis was worst for patients with pulmonary hypertension (p = 0.007), 6-min walking distance < 413 m (p = 0.003), peakVO 2  < 15.6 mL∙kg - 1 ∙min - 1 , and VE/VCO 2 -slope > 35. Age (hazard ratio HR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval CI: 1.14;1.41), VE/VCO 2 -slope (HR = 0.9; CI 0.82;0.98), diffusion capacity (Krogh factor, HR = 0.92; CI 0.86;0.98), forced vital capacity (FVC, HR = 0.91; CI 0.86;0.96), and peakVO 2 (HR = 0.87; CI 0.81;0.94) were significantly linked to survival in multivariate analyses (Harrell's C = 0.95). This is the first large study with SSc patients that demonstrates the prognostic value of peakVO 2  < 15.6 mL∙kg - 1 ∙min - 1 (< 64.5% of predicted peakVO 2 ) and VE/VCO 2 -slope > 35.

The ESC/ERS guidelines (published at the end of 2015) and other international recommendations defined pulmonary hypertension (PH) by an invasively measured mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≥ 25 mmHg at rest. At the 6 th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension in Nice a modification of this hemodynamic definition in the sense of lowering the threshold to > 20 mmHg was proposed. A pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) ≥ 3 Wood units (WU) is additionally required for the diagnosis of pre-capillary PH. This modification must be critically reviewed with regard to the underlying rationale and possible consequences. Therefore, a detailed explanation is required. In particular, it must be made clear that this change currently has no influence on the evidence-based and approval-compliant prescription of drugs for the targeted therapy of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)., Competing Interests: S. Rosenkranz: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Abbott, Actelion, Arena, Bayer, Ferrer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und United Therapeutics. Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Actelion, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer und United Therapeutics. G.P. Diller: Forschungsunterstützung und/oder Konferenz-Teilnahme und/oder Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeit von Actelion, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, AOP Orphan Therapeuticals. D. Dumitrescu: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier. Forschungsunterstützung an Institution von Actelion. R. Ewert: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, OMT, Pfizer, United Therapeutics. H.A. Ghofrani: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Konsultationen von Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und United Therapeutics. E. Grünig: Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Vorträge von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer und United Therapeutics. M. Halank: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, AOP orphan/OMT, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis und Pfizer. M. Held: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, United Therapeutics. H. Kaemmerer: Forschungsunterstützung und/oder Konferenz-Teilnahme und/oder Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeit von Actelion, Bayer, Pfizer. H. Klose: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und Kongressteilnahmeunterstützung von Actelion, Bayer, MSD, GSK, UT, Novartis, OMT und Pfizer; Forschungsunterstützung von GSK, Actelion und Bayer. G. Kovacs: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Chiesi, Boehringer-Ingelheim. S. Konstantinides: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer. I.M. Lang: Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Vorträge von Actelion, AOP Orphan, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer-Schering, Cordis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards, GSK, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, United Therapeutics. T.J. Lange: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Actelion, AOP orphan/OMT, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer and United Therapeutics. H. Leuchte: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, und Pfizer. E. Mayer: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, MSD und Pfizer. A. Olschewski: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Bayer, GSK, Pfizer. H. Olschewski: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Actelion, Bayer, Belerophon, Boehringer, GSK, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. K.M. Olsson: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten von Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Pfizer und United Therapeutics. C. Opitz: Keine persönlichen Einkünfte als mögliche Interessenkonflikte. R.T. Schermuly: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Bayer, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, United Therapeutics. W. Seeger: Honorare für Vorträge und/oder Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Forschungsunterstützung an Institutionen von Actelion, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis. H. Wilkens: Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Vorträge von Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche. M.M. Hoeper: Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten und/oder Vorträge von Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, GSK, Merck und Pfizer., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is profoundly impaired in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, data is limited regarding the course of QoL. We therefore analysed longitudinal data from the German INSIGHTS-IPF registry., Methods: Clinical status and QoL were assessed at enrollment and subsequently at 6- to 12-months intervals. A range of different QoL questionnaires including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were used., Results: Data from 424 patients were included; 76.9% male; mean age 68.7 ± 9.1 years, mean FVC% predicted 75.9 ± 19.4, mean DL CO % predicted 36.1 ± 15.9. QoL worsened significantly during follow-up with higher total SGRQ scores (increased by 1.47 per year; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.76; p < 0.001) and higher UCSD-SOBQ scores and lower EQ-5D VAS and WHO-5 scores. An absolute decline in FVC% predicted of > 10% was associated with a significant deterioration in SGRQ (increasing by 9.08 units; 95% CI: 2.48 to 15.67; p = 0.007), while patients with stable or improved FVC had no significantly change in SGRQ. Patients with a > 10% decrease of DL CO % predicted also had a significant increase in SGRQ (+ 7.79 units; 95% CI: 0.85 to 14.73; p = 0.028), while SQRQ was almost stable in patients with stable or improved DL CO . Patients who died had a significant greater increase in SGRQ total scores (mean 11.8 ± 18.6) at their last follow-up visit prior to death compared to survivors (mean 4.2 ± 18.9; HR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; p < 0.001). All QoL scores across the follow-up period were significantly worse in hospitalised patients compared to non-hospitalised patients, with the worst scores reported in those hospitalised for acute exacerbations., Conclusions: QoL assessments in the INSIGHTS-IPF registry demonstrate a close relationship between QoL and clinically meaningful changes in lung function, comorbidities, disease duration and clinical course of IPF, including hospitalisation and mortality.

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.)

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.)