SESSION TITLE: Pulmonary Hypertension: Characteristics and Treatment SESSION TYPE: Original Investigations PRESENTED ON: 10/21/2019 1:30 PM - 2:30 PM PURPOSE: The definition of pulmonary hypertension (PH) was modified at the 6th World Symposium in 2018. Our objective was to evaluate the 2013 vs 2018 definitions of PH and determine the prevalence and crossover between categories by both definitions. METHODS: The Inova Fairfax Advanced Lung Disease Database was queried for COPD and ILD patients who were evaluated with right heart catheterizations (RHC) between 2000 and 2018. RHC data was extracted along with age, gender and PFTs. PH by the old definition (mPAP 20 mmHg, PAWP ≤ 15 mmHg, PVR ≥ 3 WU), Isolated Post-Capillary PH (mPAP > 20 mmHg, PAWP > 15 mmHg, PVR < 3 WU), and Combined Pre- & Post-Capillary PH (mPAP > 20 mmHg, PAWP > 15 mmHg, PVR ≥ 3 WU). The COPD and ILD subgroups were analyzed independently. RESULTS: A total of 202 COPD and 276 ILD patients met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of PH by the old vs new definition was 61.4%/64.4% for COPD and 53.6%/51.1% for ILD. Crossover from the traditional 2 categories of PH into the 4 new categories as well as their prevalence are as follows: 11.3% of COPD patients and 14.9% of ILD patients who qualified as having PH by the old definition, crossed over into the No-PH category by the new definition. Conversely, 25.7% of COPD and 11.7% of ILD patients previously categorized as no PH now qualified as having PH. Breakdown of prevalence by 4 new groups of PH in COPD patients was the following: 35.6%, 42.1%, 10.4%, and 11.9% for No-PH, Pre-Cap PH, Post-Cap PH, and PrePost-Cap PH, respectively. For the ILD patients, 4 groups of PH shared prevalence at 48.9%, 37.7%, 8.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the prevalence of PH was very similar between the 2 definitions, the patients who comprised these groups were very different. Which of the definitions performs best in discerning outcomes remains to be determined. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Scott Barnett, source=Web Response Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Genentech Please note: $1001 - $5000 Added 03/08/2019 by Christopher King, source=Web Response, value=Honoraria No relevant relationships by Inga Ksovreli, source=Web Response Consultant relationship with Roche-Genentech Please note: $20001 - $100000 Added 03/15/2019 by Steven Nathan, source=Web Response, value=Consulting fee Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Boerhinger-Ingelheim Please note: $20001 - $100000 Added 03/15/2019 by Steven Nathan, source=Web Response, value=Honoraria Consultant relationship with Promedior Please note: $5001 - $20000 Added 03/15/2019 by Steven Nathan, source=Web Response, value=Consulting fee Consultant relationship with Bellerophon Please note: $5001 - $20000 Added 03/15/2019 by Steven Nathan, source=Web Response, value=Consulting fee Advisory Committee Member relationship with United Therapeutics Please note: $1001 - $5000 Added 03/15/2019 by Steven Nathan, source=Web Response, value=Consulting fee Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with United Therapeutics Please note: $1001 - $5000 Added 11/25/2018 by Oksana Shlobin, source=Web Response, value=Consulting fee Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Bayer Please note: $1001 - $5000 Added 11/25/2018 by Oksana Shlobin, source=Web Response, value=Honoraria Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Johnson & Johnson Please note: $1001 - $5000 Added 11/25/2018 by Oksana Shlobin, source=Web Response, value=Honoraria
Read full abstract