Search

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.)

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a widely applied clinical procedure. The aim of the present study was to acquire a comprehensive set of reference values for cardiopulmonary responses to exercise and to evaluate possible associations with sex, age and body mass index (BMI). A standardised progressive incremental exercise protocol on a cycle ergometer was applied to 1,708 volunteers of a cross-sectional epidemiologic survey, called "Study of Health in Pomerania". Individuals with cardiopulmonary disorders, or echocardiographic or lung function pathologies, were excluded. The influence of potential confounding factors, such as smoking, taking beta-blockers, hypertension, diastolic dysfunction, BMI and physical activity, were analysed for their influencing power. Reference values of CPET parameters were determined by regression analyses. Of the volunteers, 542 current smokers and obese individuals were excluded for not being representative of a healthy population. The final sample size was 534 (253 males), with age 25-80 yrs. The current study provides a representative set of reference values for CPET parameters based on age and weight. Sex and age have a significant influence on exercise parameters. While addressing the problem of a selection bias, the current study provides the first comprehensive set of reference values obtained in a large number of healthy volunteers within a population-based survey.