Evidence Hub

Pulmonary vasodilator therapy in COPD-associated pulmonary hypertension: A real-world case series of 14 patients confirmed by right heart catheterization

Michael Vera Ricaurte, E. Kosak Lopez, Andrew Geller, R. Leguizamon, J. Lam, T. Srikulmontri, Maria Helena Siqueira Tavares de Melo, T. Stavola et al.

Respiratory Medicine Case Reports, 2026

200 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Rationale: Pulmonary vasodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-associated pulmonary hypertension (COPD-PH) remains controversial, and real-world data describing which patients are selected for treatment after invasive hemodynamic confirmation are limited. We present a single-center case series of patients with RHC-confirmed COPD-PH treated with pulmonary vasodilators, focusing on clinical phenotype, hemodynamic profile, treatment patterns, and short-term outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series of adults with COPD-associated PH identified by right heart catheterization (RHC) between 2018 and 2023. Patients with isolated precapillary PH or combined pre- and postcapillary PH treated with pulmonary vasodilators within 1 month of RHC were included. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and pulmonary complications.

Results: Among 200 patients with COPD-PH and a precapillary component, 14 patients (7%) received pulmonary vasodilator therapy after RHC and comprised the case series. Most had isolated precapillary PH (71%), severe PH by prior criteria (71%), and frequent cardiopulmonary comorbidities. Sildenafil monotherapy was used in 13/14 patients, while one received sildenafil plus macitentan. At 1-year follow-up, 5/13 patients with available data developed MACE, including 3 heart failure hospitalizations and 2 cardiovascular deaths. Among 4 patients with repeat RHC, 3 had higher PVR on follow-up…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 200 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