P4678The hemodynamic improvement with balloon pulmonary angioplasty in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension depends on the lesion location

Abstract

Abstract Background Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is a treatment of choice for patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Patients with proximal pulmonary artery disease are considered to be good candidates for PEA because of their generally excellent outcomes. However, not all patients can be operated because of patients' advanced age, comorbidities and poor general condition. Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) has become an alternative treatment for CTEPH patients especially whose lesions locate in the distal site. The effectiveness of BPA in patients who have lesions in the proximal pulmonary arteries but cannot be a candidate for PEA remains unclear. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of BPA in CTEPH patients whose lesions appears operable but ineligible for PEA. Methods A total of 370 patients who underwent BPA in our institute from November 2004 to January 2018 were enrolled. All the patients were divided into operable group and inoperable group according to the difference of lesion location based on the findings of perfusion scintigraphy, computed tomography and pulmonary angiography. Hemodynamic effects of BPA in both groups were investigated. We also conducted survival analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. Results Among 370 patients, 90 patients deemed operable. The main reasons why not operated in the PEA operable group were patient's refusal (44%), advanced age (14%), and comorbidities (27%). There were no baseline characteristic differences between two groups except for the history of acute pulmonary embolism. Mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) equally improved after BPA in both groups (operable: 38.2±10.8 mmHg to 21.5±4.7mmHg, inoperable: 42.4±11.3 mmHg to 21.8±4.8 mmHg, p<0.001, operable: 8.0±4.2 wood unit to 3.5±1.5 wood unit, inoperable: 9.1±4.6 wood unit to 3.4±1.3 wood unit, p<0.001). Furthermore, five-year cumulative survival rates were not different between two groups (inoperable vs. operable: 93% vs. 88%, p=0.23, median follow-up period was 23.0 months (range: 5–136 months)). Meanwhile, the absolute change of mPAP and PVR in inoperable group were greater than those in operable group (inoperable: 20.7±11.2 mmHg, operable: 16.6±11.0 mmHg, p=0.010, inoperable: 5.6±4.4 wood unit, operable: 4.5±3.9 wood unit, p=0.015). Conclusions Although the outcome of BPA for CTEPH patients with operable lesions appears acceptable, absolute change in hemodynamics was lower than that of the patients with inoperable lesions. CTEPH with proximal lesions should be treated with PEA rather than BPA.