Cargando…

Bilateral versus unilateral balloon pulmonary angioplasty for inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bilateral balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) as compared with unilateral BPA for patients with inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHOD: We reviewed 210 consecutive BPA sessions for 92 CTEPH patients, including 124 u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hong, Cheng, Lu, Jianmin, Wu, Xiaofeng, Guo, Wenliang, Lin, Jielong, Chen, Riken, Liu, Haimin, Chen, Haiming, Lei, Yongxia, Wang, Jian, Zhong, Yue, Zhuang, Chunying, Wang, Xinlu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9080167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35525930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12931-022-02017-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of bilateral balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) as compared with unilateral BPA for patients with inoperable chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). METHOD: We reviewed 210 consecutive BPA sessions for 92 CTEPH patients, including 124 unilateral BPA sessions and 86 bilateral BPA sessions. Radiation exposure, operation details, lesions characteristics and the occurrence of complications were compared between unilateral BPA and bilateral BPA. 131 BPA sessions with a hemodynamics follow-up were included for efficacy analysis, in which hemodynamics changes were compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the occurrence of complications. RESULT: Bilateral BPA treated more lobes, arteries and lesions [3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3) lobes, p < 0.001; 8 (5.5, 10) vs. 6 (4, 8) vessels, p = 0.003; 9 (7, 12) vs. 8 (5, 10) lesions, p = 0.01] in one single session than unilateral BPA in a comparable operation duration and amount of contrast media given. Overall, the occurrence of complications was similar between bilateral BPA and unilateral BPA [9 (10.5%) vs. 12 (9.7%), p = 0.83]. Hemodynamics effects didn’t differ significantly between bilateral BPA and unilateral BPA in a single session [mPAP, − 4.5 ± 8.6 vs. − 3.6 ± 7.3 mmHg, p = 0.52; PVR, − 1.1 (− 3.5, 0.8) vs. − 1.8 (− 5.2, 0.3) Wood units, p = 0.21]. For the initial BPA session, bilateral BPA also treated more lobes, arteries and lesions than unilateral BPA [3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (1, 2) lobes, p < 0.001; 8.0 (5.8, 9.3) vs. 6.0 (4.0, 8.0) vessels, p = 0.04; 9 (6, 12) vs. 7 (4, 10) lesions, p = 0.02]. The occurrence of complications was also similar [5 (13.2%) vs. 5 (9.3%), p = 0.80], even in patients with poor baseline hemodynamics. Univariate regression analysis reveals the number of lobes treated/session, but not bilateral BPA, as predictive factors of complications. CONCLUSION: Bilateral BPA may be safely and effectively performed in patients with CTEPH without increasing operation duration and radiation burden, even in patients with unfavorable baseline hemodynamics.