BackgroundIn this study, we investigated the impact of the new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as proposed by the 6th PH World Symposium on phenotypes and survival in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).MethodsIn SSc patients who were prospectively and consecutively screened for PAH including right heart catheterisation in Heidelberg or Zurich, haemodynamic and clinical variables have been reassessed according to the new PAH definition. Patients have been followed for 3.7±3.7 (median 3.4) years; Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Patients with significant lung or left heart disease were excluded from comparative analyses.ResultsThe final dataset included 284 SSc patients, 146 patients (49.2%) had mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≤20 mm Hg, 19.3% had mPAP 21–24 mm Hg and 29.4% had mPAP ≥25 mm Hg. In the group of mildly elevated mPAP, only four patients (1.4% of the whole SSc cohort) had pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) values ≥3 Wood Units (WU) and could be reclassified as manifest SSc-APAH. Twenty-eight (9.8%) patients with mPAP of 21–24 mm Hg and PVR ≥2 WU already presented with early pulmonary vascular disease with decreased 6 min walking distance (6MWD) (p<0.001), TAPSE (p=0.004) and pulmonary arterial compliance (p<0.001). A PVR ≥2 WU was associated with reduced long-term survival (p=0.002). PVR and 6MWD were independent prognostic predictors in multivariate analysis.ConclusionThe data of this study show that a PVR threshold ≥3 WU is too high to enable an early diagnosis of PAH. A PVR threshold ≥2 WU was already associated with pulmonary vascular disease, significantly reduced survival and would be more appropriate in SSc patients with mild PAH.

Background: Data on exercise training in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) as well as data on clinical and haemodynamic changes shortly after PEA are lacking. Objective: The objective of this prospective study was to analyse the safety, feasibility, and the effectiveness of combined supervised inpatient rehabilitation in patients with CTEPH directly after PEA. Methods: CTEPH patients started a 19-week rehabilitation program (3 weeks as inpatients and continued at home for another 16 weeks) with supervised exercise training as follow-up treatment shortly after PEA. Haemodynamics were assessed by right heart catheterisation before PEA and 22 weeks after PEA. Non-invasive assessments as trans-thoracic echocardiography and 6-min walking distance (6MWD) were performed before PEA and after 3 (that is, beginning of rehabilitation), 6, and 22 weeks following PEA. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study. Results: Forty-five CTEPH patients were included (49% female, 57.6 ± 12.4 years old, 60% WHO functional class III). Rehabilitation was started 3.3 ± 0.9 weeks after PEA. Exercise training was well tolerated in all patients without severe side effects. Haemodynamics measured by right heart catheterisation significantly improved from pre-PEA to 22 weeks post-PEA in cardiac output (+1.2 ± 1.5 L/min, 33.4%, p = 0.001) and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (-19 ± 13 mm Hg,-39.6%, p < 0.0001). Right heart size measured by echocardiography, 6MWD, quality of life, and oxygen saturation significantly improved not only within the first 3 weeks after PEA but also during the following 19 weeks of exercise training. Conclusions: Supervised exercise training was feasible as early follow-up treatment after PEA. Further controlled studies are needed to discriminate the effects of PEA and early followup rehabilitation. Trial Registration: The study was regis-Nagel et al.