Abstract
Background Identification of long-term calcium channel blocker (CCB) responders with acute vasodilator challenge is critical in the evaluation of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Currently there is no standardized approach for use of supplemental oxygen during acute vasodilator challenge.
Methods Retrospective analysis of patients identified as acute vasoresponders, treated with CCBs. All patients had hemodynamic measurements in three phases: 1) at baseline; 2) with 100% fractional inspired oxygen; and 3) with 100% fractional inspired oxygen plus inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). Patients were divided into two cohorts. Those meeting the definition of acute vasoresponsiveness from phase 2 to phase 3 were labeled “iNO Responders.” Those who did not reach the threshold of acute vasoresponsiveness from phase 2 to phase 3 but did meet the definition from phase 1 to phase 3 were labeled “Oxygen Responders.” Survival, hospitalization for decompensated right heart failure, duration of CCB monotherapy, and functional data were collected.
Results iNO Responders, when compared to Oxygen Responders, had superior survival (100% vs 50.1% 5-year survival, respectively), fewer hospitalizations for acute decompensated right heart failure (0% vs 30.4% at 1 year, respectively), longer duration of CCB monotherapy (80% versus 52% at 1 year, respectively), and superior six-minute walk distance.
Conclusion Current guidelines for acute vasodilator testing do not standardize oxygen coadministration with iNO. This study demonstrates that adjusting for the effects of supplemental oxygen before assessing for acute vasoresponsiveness identifies a cohort with superior functional status, tolerance of CCB monotherapy, and survival while on long-term CCB therapy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB Protocol #: 07-0953)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: None
Data Availability
All data contained within an Excel sheet on an encrypted hard drive
