Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates clinical and hemodynamic gains from targeted therapy and fenestrated shunt closure in borderline patients, highlighting viability of individualized repair.
Background: Repair of systemic to pulmonary shunts is timed to prevent the development of irreversible pulmonary vascular disease, including in patients with other factors contributing to pulmonary hypertension. This study assessed outcomes of an individualised strategy for managing patients with mild-moderately elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) deemed borderline eligible for repair. Methods: treated at a single centre from 1 January 2005 to 30 September 2019. Data included demographics, World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC), medications and haemodynamic data at baseline and serial follow-up. Results: 30 patients (18 females) met criteria for inclusion. Median age at diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension was 1.3 years (range 0.03-54 years) and at surgery was 4.1 years (range 0.73-56 years). Median follow-up time was 5.8 years (range 0.2-14.6 years) after repair. Most patients received at least one targeted pulmonary arterial therapy prior to repair and the majority (80%) underwent fenestrated shunt closure. There was a significant decrease in mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) (p<0.01), PVRi (p=0.0001) and PVR/systemic vascular resistance (p<0.01) between baseline and preoperative catheterisation and a decrease in PVRi (p<0.005), mPAP (p=0.0001) and pulmonary to systemic flow ratio (p<0.03) from baseline to most recent catheterisation. WHO FC improved from FC II-III at baseline to FC I post repair in most patients (p<0.003). Conclusions: In carefully selected patients with systemic to pulmonary shunts and elevated PVR considered borderline for operability, the use of preoperative targeted therapy in conjunction with fenestrated or partial closure of intracardiac shunts is associated with improvement in WHO FC and clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linder et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: