Abstract 19944: Targeted Therapy of Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Safety and Efficacy in Comparison to IPAH in Compera

Abstract

Background: While targeted therapies are available for idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), evidence based treatment recommendations for pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are lacking. Methods and Results: Out of 5,935 patients in the prospective COMPERA registry, we analyzed patients with “typical” IPAH (n=421, ≤2 of the following risk factors: BMI >30 kg/m2, hypertension, CAD, diabetes and atrial fibrillation at the time of diagnosis), “atypical” IPAH (n=139, >2 risk factors) or PH-HFpEF (n=226) who received targeted PH therapies. Patients with PH-HFpEF, when compared to “typical” and “atypical” IPAH were older (73±8 vs. 62±17 and 71±9 years), had a higher BMI (30 vs. 26 and 32 kg/m2), and more comorbidities (98% vs. 73% and 100%, all p<0.001), respectively. However, mean PAP (46±9 vs. 47±13 and 44±11 mmHg), cardiac index (2.2±0.7 vs. 2,3±0,8 and 2,2±0,8 l/min), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (62±7 vs. 62±10 and 63±9%, all ns) were almost identical. As compared to “typical” and “atypical” IPAH, PH-HFpEF patients had a higher PAWP (20±4 vs. 9±3 and 10±4 mmHg), resulting in a lower calculated PVR (559±270 vs. 861±477 and 784±844 dyn.s.cm-5). Survival at 1, 2 and 3 years post diagnosis was not different between groups. PDE-5 inhibitors were the most common form of initial PH treatment in PH-HFpEF (94%), and combination therapy was less common compared to “typical” or “atypical” IPAH at 1 year (7% vs. 44% and 26%). All 3 groups responded to targeted PH therapies at 12 months, while treatment effects were less pronounced in PH-HFpEF: Compared to baseline, the median increase of the 6MWD at 1 year was 29, 50, and 60 m, respectively. Treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently in patients with PH-HFpEF than in IPAH, either because of side effects or lack of improvement. Conclusions: Despite almost identical alterations of pulmonary artery pressure and cardiac output, patients with PH-HFpEF differed with respect to age, comorbidities and certain hemodynamic features when compared to “typical” or “atypical” IPAH. All groups responded to targeted PH therapy, however tolerability and efficacy of PH drugs were reduced in patients with PH-HFpEF while survival was not different.