Elderly Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Hypertension: Clinical Characteristics, Survival, and Risk Stratification in a Single-Center Prospective Registry

INTRODUCTION

The predictive value of the risk stratification scales in elderly patients with IPAH might differ from that in younger patients. It is unknown whether young and older IPAH patients have the same survival dependence on PAH-specific therapy numbers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic relevance of risk stratification scales and PAH medication numbers in elderly IPAH patients in comparison with young IPAH patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 119 patients from a prospective single-center PAH registry were divided into group I < 60 years old (n = 89) and group II ≥ 60 years old (n = 30). ESC/ERS, REVEAL, and REVEAL 2.0 risk stratification scores were assessed at baseline, as well as H2FpEF score and survival at follow-up.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up period of 2.9 years (1.63; 6.0), 42 (35.3%) patients died; at 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years, survival was 95%, 88.6%, 78.5%, 61.7%, 48.5%, and 33.7%, respectively. No survival differences were observed between the two groups, despite the use of monotherapy in the elderly patients. The best predictive REVEAL value in elderly patients (IPAH patients ≥ 60 years) was AUC 0.73 (0.56-0.91), p = 0.03; and in patients with LHD comorbidities in the entire cohort, it was AUC 0.73 (0.59-0.87), p < 0.009. Factors independently associated with death in the entire cohort were CKD (p = 0.01, HR 0.2), the right-to-left ventricle dimension ratio (p = 0.0047, HR 5.97), and NT-proBNP > 1400 pg/mL (p = 0.008, HR 3.18).

CONCLUSION

Risk stratification in the elderly IPAH patients requires a fundamentally different approach than that of younger patients, taking into account the initial limitations in physical performance and comorbidities that interfere with current assessment scores. The REVEAL score reliably stratifies patients at any age and LHD comorbidities. The initial monotherapy seems to be reasonable in patients over 60 years. Selection tools for initial combination PAH therapy in older IPAH patients with comorbidities need to be validated in prospective observational studies.

Treatment of HIV-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension: single-center experience

Introduction

Currently there is no evidence-based strategy for PAH drug application adjusted for patients with HIV-associated PAH. Data regarding the use of sildenafil and endothelin receptors antagonists (ERA) are limited case series.

Purpose

To present the long-term data on treatment with sildenafil, macitentan and ambrisentan in pts with HIV-PAH.

Material and methods

In prospective study were consecutively enrolled 18 treatment-naïve pts with HIV-PAH (7 males, 34.5 yrs; 29; 53 yrs), mean follow-up was 1.64yrs; 0,16–59–9.28 yrs. 4 pts were in IV FC, 5-III FC and 9 in II FC PAH (WHO). RHC, ECHO, 6MWT, ergospirometry and NTproBNP level were evaluated at a baseline. Intravenous drug abuse reported in 72% pts, all of them were co-infected with hepatitis. Nine pts (50%) treated with HAART therapy at a baseline. Five pts did not have PAH-specific therapy, 11 pts received sildenafil, 1 IV FC PAH pt with HAART – sildenafil+macitentan and 1 III FC PAH pt with HAART-sildenafil+ambrisentan. Follow-up data (FC, 6MWT, ECHO, ergospirometry, NT-proBNP) were available for 8 PAH-treated pts.

Results

Pts on PAH therapy had achieved improvement in 6 MWT with mean distance increase 69.3±52 m (p=0.01); NTproBNP level decrease (p=0.018) and FC PAH improvement in 7 pts. In pts with PAH therapy the size of right atrium decreased (56.4±7.8 vs 47.8±6.7 mm, p=0.027). The combinations of sildenafil and macitentan and sildenafil with ambrisentan were well tolerated and resulted 6MWT increase, low NTproBNP and FC improvement. Nevertheless there was no significant changes in peak VO2 consumption. Two pts with sildenafil therapy lost for follow up. Three pts with sildenafil but without HAART therapy dead: in one case due to pneumonia, other 2 cases due to pulmonary embolism. Four pts without HAART and PAH therapy dead. In our population strong association between survival and HAART therapy presence was revealed (p=0.01).

Conclusion

No adverse reactions of PAH-specific therapy were reported in pts on HAART. PAH therapy had a positive influence on FC, exercise capacity, heart remodeling and NT-proBNP level. There were no deaths in pts who receive HAART and PAH therapy. Nevertheless in our population strong association between survival and HAART therapy presence was revealed.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None