7 vs 66 6 ± 5 6, respectively; p = 0 01) For the entire cohort,

7 vs. 66.6 ± 5.6, respectively; p = 0.01). For the entire cohort, we found a significant increase in RVSWI (mean increase 3.4 ± 9.5 Protein Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor gm·m/m2/beat, p = 0.007) and PC (mean increase 0.4 ± 1.0 ml/mm Hg, p = 0.02) after medical therapy (Fig. 2). In the prostanoid group there was a significant increase in RVSWI (p = 0.04) and a trend toward improvement in PC (p = 0.06). However, in the 17 patients started on a regimen of oral therapy, neither RVSWI nor PC increased

significantly after treatment (p = 0.25 and 0.46, respectively) (Fig. 3). In the 7 patients who were treated with calcium channel blockers, RVSWI (15.7 ± 4.0 gm·m/m2/beat vs. 19.4 ± 3.2 gm·m/m2/beat; p = 0.02) and PC (1.2 ± 0.3 ml/mm Hg vs. 2.3 ± 1.1 ml/mm Hg; p = 0.03) both increased after therapy. Because only prostanoids and calcium channel blockers were available between 1996 and 2001, we repeated our analysis with a cutoff diagnosis date of January 2001 (n = 50). Improvement in RVSWI and PC remained significant in the prostanoid group (p = 0.04 and 0.01, respectively) and did not reach significance in the oral therapy group (p = 0.23 and 0.30, respectively). Change in RVSWI after therapy was driven more by change in CO (rs = 0.5, p = 0.002) than change in mPAP (rs = 0.36, p = 0.03) (Figs. 4A and 4B). The major determinant of

RVSWI was change in SV (rs = 0.54, p < 0.001). Increase in CO after therapy was almost entirely due to an increase in SV (rs = 0.89, p < 0.001) with no contribution from change in HR (rs = 0.1, Thiamet G p = 0.3) (Figs. 4C and selleckchem 4D). We found that change in PC was strongly

influenced by change in PVR (rs = −0.6, p < 0.001) (Fig. 5). Change in PVR was investigated as a possible explanation for the difference in RV function response between oral and prostanoid therapy groups. We found no difference in delta PVR between the oral-only and prostanoid groups (−0.4 ± 4.6 WU vs. −4.5 ± 7.9 WU, respectively; p = 0.07), although there was a strong trend toward statistical significance. Change in PVR and change in RVSWI did not correlate significantly in either the oral only (rs = −0.12, p = 0.66) or prostanoid group (rs = −0.20, p = 0.44). When comparing the response to therapy by RVSWI tertile, we found a stepwise response with the highest improvement in RVSWI in the lowest tertile (Fig. 6). There was no association between tertile of baseline RVSWI and likelihood of being treated with prostanoid therapy (p = 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 1.7). A similar stepwise pattern in PC was seen in response to therapy with the lowest baseline tertile improving the most (Fig. 6). Differences in change in 6MWD and functional class by group are shown in Table 4. Improvement in both 6MWD and functional class was significantly better in the prostanoid group, compared with the oral therapy group. For the cohort as a whole, no correlation was found between RVSWI at diagnosis and 6MWD (rs = −0.08, p = 0.59) or functional class (rs = −0.19, p = 0.

Comments are closed.