Evidence Hub

The Association Between Pulmonary Vascular Resistance and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension: A Retrospective Cohort Study

B. Maron, E. Brittain, E. Hess, S. Waldo, A. Baron, Shi Huang, Ronald H. Goldstein, T. Assad et al.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2020

40,082 participants · 196 citations

Abstract

Background: In pulmonary hypertension (PH) subgroups, elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) ≥3.0 WU is associated with poor prognosis. However, the spectrum of PVR risk in PH is not known. To address this area of uncertainty, we aimed to analyze the relationship between PVR and adverse clinical outcomes in PH. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively all patients undergoing right heart catheterization (RHC) in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system (2008–2016; 1,153 [570–1,971] days median follow-up). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between PVR and outcomes, and the mortality hazard was validated in a RHC cohort from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (1998–2014; 1,752 [1,281–2,999] days median follow-up). Findings: The primary cohort (N=40,082; male, N=38,751 [96.7%]; 66.5 [61.1–73.5] yr) included patients with a history of heart failure (N=23,201 [57.9%]) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (N=13,348 [33.3%]). We focused on patients at risk for PH based on mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ≥19 mmHg (N=32,725 of 40,082 [81.6%]). When modeled as a continuous variable, the all-cause mortality hazard for PVR was increased at ~2.2 WU compared to PVR=1.0 WU. Among patients with ≥19 mmHg and pulmonary artery wedge pressure ≤15 mmHg, the adjusted hazard ratios for mortality and heart failure hospitalization were 1.71 (95% CI: 1.59–1.84, P<0.0001) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.13–1.43, P=0.0001), respectively, when comparing PVR ≥2.2 WU to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 40,082 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free