Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge, and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy, and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

No abstract

The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC. Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances of the individual patients, in consultation with that patient, and where appropriate and necessary the patient's guardian or carer. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable to drugs and devices at the time of prescription.

@ERSpublicationsThe risk stratification strategy proposed by the current European PH guidelines allows accurate survival prediction http://ow.ly/KsWk30c46nK ABSTRACT The 2015 European pulmonary hypertension (PH) guidelines propose a risk stratification strategy for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Low-, intermediate-and high-risk strata are defined by estimated 1-year mortality risks of <5%, 5-10% and >10%, respectively. This risk assessment strategy awaits validation.We analysed data from patients with newly diagnosed PAH enrolled into COMPERA (Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension), a European-based PH registry. An abbreviated version of the risk assessment strategy proposed by the European PH guidelines was applied, using the following variables: World Health Organization functional class, 6-min walking distance, brain natriuretic peptide or its N-terminal fragment, right atrial pressure, cardiac index and mixed venous oxygen saturation.Data from 1588 patients were analysed. Mortality rates were significantly different between the three risk strata ( p<0.001 for all comparisons). In the entire patient population, the observed mortality rates 1 year after diagnosis were 2.8% in the low-risk cohort (n=196), 9.9% in the intermediate-risk cohort (n=1116) and 21.2% in the high-risk cohort (n=276). In addition, the risk assessment strategy proved valid at follow-up and in major PAH subgroups.An abbreviated version of the risk assessment strategy proposed by the current European PH guidelines provides accurate mortality estimates in patients with PAH.

In patients with left ventricular heart failure (HF), the development of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction are frequent and have important impact on disease progression, morbidity, and mortality, and therefore warrant clinical attention. Pulmonary hypertension related to left heart disease (LHD) by far represents the most common form of PH, accounting for 65–80% of cases. The proper distinction between pulmonary arterial hypertension and PH-LHD may be challenging, yet it has direct therapeutic consequences. Despite recent advances in the pathophysiological understanding and clinical assessment, and adjustments in the haemodynamic definitions and classification of PH-LHD, the haemodynamic interrelations in combined post- and pre-capillary PH are complex, definitions and prognostic significance of haemodynamic variables characterizing the degree of pre-capillary PH in LHD remain suboptimal, and there are currently no evidence-based recommendations for the management of PH-LHD. Here, we highlight the prevalence and significance of PH and RV dysfunction in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and provide insights into the complex pathophysiology of cardiopulmonary interaction in LHD, which may lead to the evolution from a ‘left ventricular phenotype’ to a ‘right ventricular phenotype’ across the natural history of HF. Furthermore, we propose to better define the individual phenotype of PH by integrating the clinical context, non-invasive assessment, and invasive haemodynamic variables in a structured diagnostic work-up. Finally, we challenge current definitions and diagnostic short falls, and discuss gaps in evidence, therapeutic options and the necessity for future developments in this context.