Post-capillary pulmonary hypertension in heart failure: impact of current definition in the PH-HF multicentre study.
Fauvel. Charles C; Damy. Thibaud T; Berthelot. Emmanuelle E; Bauer. Fabrice F; Eicher. Jean-Christophe JC; de Groote. Pascal P; Trochu. Jean-Noël JN; Picard. François F; Renard. Sébastien S; Bouvaist. Hélène H; Logeart. Damien D; Roubille. François F; Sitbon. Olivier O; Lamblin. Nicolas N
Key Findings
- Reducing the mPAP threshold from 25 to 20 mmHg increased pcPH prevalence by about 10%.
- Reducing the PVR threshold from 3 to 2 WU increased combined pcPH (CpcPH) prevalence by about 60% and improved risk classification.
- Both higher mPAP (HR ≈ 1.02 per mmHg) and higher PVR (HR ≈ 1.07 per WU) remained independent predictors of death or HF hospitalisation; the optimal PVR cut‑off was around 2.2 WU.
Practical Outcomes
- For most biohackers and self‑experimenters, the study offers limited direct action—it's mainly a clinical re‑definition that helps doctors identify higher‑risk heart‑failure patients. Unless you have medically supervised right‑heart catheter measurements, the new thresholds don’t change everyday health‑optimization protocols.
Summary
The 2022 European guidelines lowered the cut‑offs for diagnosing post‑capillary pulmonary hypertension (pcPH) in heart‑failure patients. Using the new limits (mean pulmonary artery pressure > 20 mmHg and pulmonary vascular resistance > 2 WU) catches more people with the condition, and both numbers still predict a higher chance of death or hospitalisation.
Abstract
Based on retrospective studies, the 2022 European guidelines changed the definition of post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (pcPH) in heart failure (HF) by lowering the level of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). However, the impact of this definition and its prognostic value has never been evaluated prospectively. Stable left HF patients with the need for right heart catheterization were enrolled from 2010 to 2018 and prospectively followed up in this multicentre study. The impact of the successive pcPH definitions on pcPH prevalence and subgroup [i.e. isolated (IpcPH) vs. combined pcPH (CpcPH)] was evaluated. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the prognostic value of mPAP and PVR on all-cause death or hospitalization for HF (primary outcome). Included were 662 HF patients were (median age 63 years, 60% male). Lowering mPAP from 25 to 20 mmHg resulted in +10% increase in pcPH prevalence, whereas lowering PVR from 3 to 2 resulted in +60% increase in CpcPH prevalence (with significant net reclassification improvement for the primary outcome). In multivariable analysis, both mPAP and PVR remained associated with the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.03, P = .01; HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.14, P = .03]. The best PVR threshold associated with the primary outcome was around 2.2 WU. Using the 2022 definition, pcPH patients had worse survival compared with HF patients without pcPH (log-rank, P = .02) as well as CpcPH compared with IpcPH (log-rank, P = .003). This study is the first emphasizing the impact of the new pcPH definition on CpcPH prevalence and validating the prognostic value of mPAP > 20 mmHg and PVR > 2 WU among HF patients.
Study Information
pubmed
2024
2024-09-14T00:00:00.000Z
10.1093/eurheartj/ehae467
17
35