Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with high risk of stroke preventable by timely initiation of anticoagulation. Currently available screening tools based on ECG are not optimal due to inconvenience and high costs. Aim of this study was to study the diagnostic value of apelin for AF in patients with high risk of stroke.Methods: We designed a multicenter, matched-cohort study. The population consisted of three study groups: a healthy control group (34 patients) and two matched groups of 60 patients with high risk of stroke (AF and non-AF group). Apelin levels were examined from peripheral blood.Results: Apelin was significantly lower in AF group compared to non-AF group (0.694 ± 0.148 vs. 0.975 ± 0.458 ng/ml, p = 0.001) and control group (0.982 ± 0.060 ng/ml, p < 0.001), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of apelin as a predictor of AF scored area under the curve (AUC) of 0.658. Apelin's concentration of 0.969 [ng/ml] had sensitivity = 0.966 and specificity = 0.467. Logistic regression based on manual feature selection showed that only apelin and NT-proBNP were independent predictors of AF. Logistic regression based on selection from bivariate analysis showed that only apelin was an independent predictor of AF. A logistic regression model using repeated stratified K-Fold cross-validation strategy scored an AUC of 0.725 ± 0.131.Conclusions: Our results suggest that apelin might be used to rule out AF in patients with high risk of stroke.

Background. Congenital absence of the portal vein (CAPV) is an extremely rare malformation that is caused by aberrant venous development during embryogenesis and is usually associated with congenital portosystemic shunts (CPSS). This hemodynamic allows mesenteric blood to bypass the liver metabolism and causes an imbalance between vasodilators and vasoconstrictors in the pulmonary circulation, which, again, might lead to the development of secondary portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH). Establishing the exact morphology of the splanchnic venous system is important when evaluating possible therapeutic options (differentiating type I and II CAPV), because some variants enable the closure of the shunt, and this represents a potential cure for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Once PoPH is diagnosed, complex care in a specialized expert centre is necessary. If possible, CPSS closure is recommended. For long-term successful patient management, specific targeted PAH therapy administration is crucial. Significant morbidity and mortality in these patients may result not only from PAH itself but also due to specific PoPH complications, such as compression of the left main coronary artery by pulmonary artery aneurysm. Case Report. We report on two patients with PoPH due to CAPV and CPSS (without any liver disease) who presented as severe PAH and who, before admission to our expert centre, were misdiagnosed as idiopathic PAH. The case reports also represent our experience with respect to the long-term follow-up and PAH-specific medical treatment of these patients, as well as the possible (even fatal) complications of these rare and complex patients.

Background and Objectives: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a chronic progressive disease, resulting from persistent arterial obstruction combined with small-vessel remodeling. Central and peripheral CTEPH are distinguished, according to the dominant lesion’s location. This is important for surgical or percutaneous interventional assessment or for medical treatment. Material and Methods: Eighty-one patients (51 male/30 female) with confirmed CTEPH were analyzed, while the CENTRAL type included 51 patients (63%) and the PERIPHERAL type 30 patients (37%). Results: A significant difference in CENTRAL type vs. PERIPHERAL type was determined in gender (male 72.5% vs. 46.7%; p = 0.0198). No difference was found in age, functional status, or echocardiographic parameters. Invasive hemodynamic parameters showed a significant difference in mean pulmonary arterial pressure (46 vs. 58 mmHg; p = 0.0002), transpulmonary gradient (34 vs. 47 mmHg; p = 0.0005), and cardiac index (2.04 vs. 2.5 L.min.m2; p = 0.02) but not in pulmonary vascular resistance. Risk factors showed a significant difference only in acute pulmonary embolism (93.8% vs. 60%; p = 0.0002) and malignancy (2% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.0426). Conclusions: Our study showed hemodynamic differences between CENTRAL type vs. PERIPHERAL type CTEPH with a worse hemodynamic picture in CENTRAL form. This may indicate a different pathophysiological response and/or possible additional influences contributing especially to the peripheral pulmonary bed affection.