Correspondence on the debate regarding the haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension. Issue 6 (6th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Maron, Bradley A.; Choudhary, Gaurav; Tedford, Ryan J.; Brittain, Evan
• Is Part Of: European respiratory journal. Volume 53:Issue 6(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-06-06
• Subjects: Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiration -- Periodicals; 616.2
• DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00727-2019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0903-1936

Abstract

We read with interest the balanced and well-constructed debate on the new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension (PH) published recently in the European Respiratory Journal [1, 2]. The current era of cardiopulmonary medicine is (or at least should be) at its best when defined by evidence-based decision-making. Thus, we agree with Hoeper and Humbert [1], who elegantly chronicle the trajectory of data through time that ultimately caused reconsideration to the mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) threshold associated with clinical risk, now inclusive of >28 000 patients [3–6]. Since the basis of the original PH definition was largely arbitrary, the arc of debate toward a revised understanding on PAP was inevitable. In this regard, it seemed rational to modernise and align the definition of PH with the empirical evidence showing risk at lower mPAP values. Additional data are needed to clarify the haemodynamic spectrum of clinical risk in pulmonary hypertension http://bit.ly/2ZXgld8