Search

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the safety of pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) across body mass index (BMI) strata. However, long-term survival and patient-reported outcome measures by BMI strata remain unknown. We examined the impact of preoperative BMI on long-term survival, QOL, and functional outcomes for patients undergoing PEA for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH)., Methods: Retrospective review of 2,004 patients from the UK National Cohort between 2007 and 2021 undergoing PEA for CTEPH (mean pulmonary artery pressure >20 mm Hg and pulmonary vascular resistance >160 dynes). Patients were stratified into BMI<20, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50+. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were 3- to 6-month postoperative hemodynamics, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) scores., Results: Hemodynamics and 6MWD at 3 to 6 months were similar across BMI strata. Patients with BMI 50+ reported the highest incidence of postoperative NYHA III/IV limitation (53.3%, p < 0.001) and the highest residual symptom burden by CAMPHOR (p < 0.001). Five-year survival was lowest in patients with BMI 50+ (70.2%) and BMI<20 (73.4%), while highest in BMI 30 to 39 (88.2%, p = 0.008). Ten-year Kaplan-Meier estimates predicted the lowest survival in BMI 50+ and BMI<20., Conclusions: PEA remains safe and effective for all patients regardless of BMI. Despite similar hemodynamic outcomes, patients with BMI 50+ are at the greatest risk of long-term all-cause mortality, and patients with BMI 50+ experience residual symptomatic limitation., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a well-recognised complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease with and without pulmonary hypertension (CTEPD/CTEPH) are potential life-limiting consequences. At present the burden of CTEPD/CTEPH is unclear and optimal and cost-effective screening strategies yet to be established., Methods: We evaluated the CTEPD/CTEPH referral rate to the UK national multidisciplinary team (MDT) during the 2017-2022 period to establish the national incidence of CTEPD/CTEPH potentially attributable to COVID-19-associated PE with historical comparator years. All individual cases of suspected CTEPH were reviewed by the MDT for evidence of associated COVID-19. In a separate multicentre cohort, the risk of developing CTEPH following hospitalisation with COVID-19 was calculated using simple clinical parameters at a median of 5 months post-hospital discharge according to existing risk scores using symptoms, ECG and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide., Results: By the second year of the pandemic, CTEPH diagnoses had returned to the pre-pandemic baseline (23.1 versus 27.8 cases per month; p=0.252). Of 334 confirmed CTEPD/CTEPH cases, four (1.2%) patients were identified to have CTEPH potentially associated with COVID-19 PE, and a further three (0.9%) CTEPD without PH. Of 1094 patients (mean age 58 years, 60.4% male) hospitalised with COVID-19 screened across the UK, 11 (1.0%) were at high risk of CTEPH at follow-up, none of whom had a diagnosis of CTEPH made at the national MDT., Conclusion: A priori risk of developing CTEPH following COVID-19-related hospitalisation is low. Simple risk scoring is a potentially effective way of screening patients for further investigation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.D. Chalmers has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis, Insmed and Trudell; received consultancy or speaker fees from Antabio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Trudell and Zambon; and is Chief Editor of the European Respiratory Journal. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2024.)

Objective: Prospectively validate prognostication scores, SOARS and 4C Mortality Score, derived from the COVID-19 first wave, for mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 variants (B.1.1.7 replacing D614) and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality., Design: Protocol-based prospective observational cohort study., Setting: Single site PREDICT and multisite ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) cohorts in UK COVID-19 second wave, October 2020 to January 2021., Participants: 1383 PREDICT and 20 595 ISARIC SARS-CoV-2 patients., Primary Outcome Measures: Relevance of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score determining in-hospital mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving UK COVID-19 second wave., Results: 1383 (median age 67 years, IQR 52-82; mortality 24.7%) PREDICT and 20 595 (mortality 19.4%) ISARIC patient cohorts showed SOARS had area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8 and 0.74, while 4C Mortality Score had AUC of 0.83 and 0.91 for hospital mortality, in the PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts respectively, therefore, effective in evaluating safe discharge and in-hospital mortality. 19.3% (231/1195, PREDICT cohort) and 16.7% (2550/14992, ISARIC cohort) with SOARS of 0-1 were candidates for safe discharge to a virtual hospital (VH) model. SOARS implementation in the VH pathway resulted in low readmission, 11.8% (27/229) and low mortality, 0.9% (2/229). Use to prevent admission is still suboptimal, as 8.1% in the PREDICT cohort and 9.5% in the ISARIC cohort were admitted despite SOARS score of 0-1., Conclusions: SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remains valid, transforming complex clinical presentations into tangible numbers, aiding objective decision making, despite SARS-CoV-2 variants and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality. Both scores, easily implemented within urgent care pathways for safe early discharge, allocate hospital resources appropriately to the pandemic's needs while enabling normal healthcare services resumption., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)