Elena Ansaldo

Long-term Outcome after Pulmonary Endarterectomy

RATIONALE There are few follow-up studies on long-term cardiopulmonary function after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), the operation of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). OBJECTIVES To prospectively evaluate long-term outcome of patients with CTEPH treated with PEA. METHODS Between 1994 and 2006, 157 patients (mean age 55 yr) were treated with PEA at Pavia University Hospital. The patients were evaluated before PEA and at 3 months (n = 132), 1 year (n = 110), 2 years (n = 86), 3 years (n = 69), and 4 years (n = 49) afterward by NYHA class, right heart hemodynamic, spirometry, carbon monoxide transfer factor (Tl(CO)), arterial blood gas, and treadmill incremental exercise test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Cumulative survival was 84%. Within 3 months, 18 patients died in-hospital and 2 had lung transplantation; during long-term follow-up, 6 died, 1 had lung transplantation, and 3 had a second PEA (2.5 events per 100 person-years). NYHA class III-IV was the most important predictor of late death, lung transplant, or PEA redo (hazard ratio, 3.94). Extraordinary improvement in NYHA class, hemodynamic, and Pa(O(2)) were achieved in the first 3 months (P < 0.001) and persisted during follow-up; exercise tolerance progressively increased over time (P < 0.001). At 4 years, although 74% of the patients were in NYHA class I and none was in class IV, 24% had pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 500 dyne.s/cm(5) or Pa(O(2)) less than 60 mm Hg; they were significantly older and were more frequently in NYHA class III-IV 3 months after surgery than the others. CONCLUSIONS After PEA, long-term survival and cardiopulmonary function recovery is excellent in most patients.

Underestimation of airflow obstruction among young adults using FEV1/FVC <70% as a fixed cut-off: a longitudinal evaluation of clinical and functional outcomes

Background: Early detection of airflow obstruction is particularly important among young adults because they are more likely to benefit from intervention. Using the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC) <70% fixed ratio, airflow obstruction may be underdiagnosed. The lower limit of normal (LLN), which is statistically defined by the lower fifth percentile of a reference population, is physiologically appropriate but it still needs a clinical validation. Methods: To evaluate the characteristics and longitudinal outcomes of subjects misidentified as normal by the fixed ratio with respect to the LLN, 6249 participants (aged 20–44 years) in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey were examined and divided into three groups (absence of airflow obstruction by the LLN and the fixed ratio; presence of airflow obstruction only by the LLN; presence of airflow obstruction by the two criteria) for 1991–1993. LLN equations were obtained from normal non-smoking participants. A set of clinical and functional outcomes was evaluated in 1999–2002. Results: The misidentified subjects were 318 (5.1%); only 45.6% of the subjects with airflow obstruction by the LLN were also identified by the fixed cut-off. At baseline, FEV1 (107%, 97%, 85%) progressively decreased and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (slope 7.84, 6.32, 5.57) progressively increased across the three groups. During follow-up, misidentified subjects had a significantly higher risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a significantly higher use of health resources (medicines, emergency department visits/hospital admissions) because of breathing problems than subjects without airflow obstruction (p<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show the importance of using statistically derived spirometric criteria to identify airflow obstruction.

What defines airflow obstruction in asthma

Asthma guidelines from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute provide conflicting definitions of airflow obstruction, suggesting a fixed forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) cut-off point and the lower limit of normality (LLN), respectively. The LLN was recommended by the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines on lung function testing. The problem in using fixed cut-off points is that they are set regardless of age and sex in an attempt to simplify diagnosis at the expense of misclassification. The sensitivity and specificity of fixed FEV1/FVC ratios of 0.70, 0.75 and 0.80 versus the LLN were evaluated in 815 subjects (aged 20–44 yrs) with a diagnosis of asthma within the framework of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. In males, the 0.70 ratio showed 76.5% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity, the 0.75 ratio 100.0% sensitivity and 92.4% specificity, and the 0.80 ratio 100.0% sensitivity but 58.1% specificity. In females, the 0.70 ratio showed 57.3% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity, the 0.75 ratio 91.5% sensitivity and 95.9% specificity, and the 0.80 ratio 100.0% sensitivity but 72.9% specificity. The fixed cut-off points cause a lot of misidentification of airflow obstruction in young adults, with overestimation with the 0.80 ratio and underestimation with the 0.70 ratio. In conclusion, the GINA guidelines should change their criteria for defining airflow obstruction.

Underestimation of airflow obstruction among young adults using FEV(1)/FVC <70% as a fixed cut-off

Background: Early detection of airflow obstruction is particularly important among young adults because they are more likely to benefit from intervention. Using the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC) <70% fixed ratio, airflow obstruction may be underdiagnosed. The lower limit of normal (LLN), which is statistically defined by the lower fifth percentile of a reference population, is physiologically appropriate but it still needs a clinical validation. Methods: To evaluate the characteristics and longitudinal outcomes of subjects misidentified as normal by the fixed ratio with respect to the LLN, 6249 participants (aged 20–44 years) in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey were examined and divided into three groups (absence of airflow obstruction by the LLN and the fixed ratio; presence of airflow obstruction only by the LLN; presence of airflow obstruction by the two criteria) for 1991–1993. LLN equations were obtained from normal non-smoking participants. A set of clinical and functional outcomes was evaluated in 1999–2002. Results: The misidentified subjects were 318 (5.1%); only 45.6% of the subjects with airflow obstruction by the LLN were also identified by the fixed cut-off. At baseline, FEV1 (107%, 97%, 85%) progressively decreased and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (slope 7.84, 6.32, 5.57) progressively increased across the three groups. During follow-up, misidentified subjects had a significantly higher risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a significantly higher use of health resources (medicines, emergency department visits/hospital admissions) because of breathing problems than subjects without airflow obstruction (p<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show the importance of using statistically derived spirometric criteria to identify airflow obstruction.

Underestimation of airflow obstruction among young adults using FEV 1FVC

Background: Early detection of airflow obstruction is particularly important among young adults because they are more likely to benefit from intervention. Using the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC) <70% fixed ratio, airflow obstruction may be underdiagnosed. The lower limit of normal (LLN), which is statistically defined by the lower fifth percentile of a reference population, is physiologically appropriate but it still needs a clinical validation. Methods: To evaluate the characteristics and longitudinal outcomes of subjects misidentified as normal by the fixed ratio with respect to the LLN, 6249 participants (aged 20–44 years) in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey were examined and divided into three groups (absence of airflow obstruction by the LLN and the fixed ratio; presence of airflow obstruction only by the LLN; presence of airflow obstruction by the two criteria) for 1991–1993. LLN equations were obtained from normal non-smoking participants. A set of clinical and functional outcomes was evaluated in 1999–2002. Results: The misidentified subjects were 318 (5.1%); only 45.6% of the subjects with airflow obstruction by the LLN were also identified by the fixed cut-off. At baseline, FEV1 (107%, 97%, 85%) progressively decreased and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (slope 7.84, 6.32, 5.57) progressively increased across the three groups. During follow-up, misidentified subjects had a significantly higher risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a significantly higher use of health resources (medicines, emergency department visits/hospital admissions) because of breathing problems than subjects without airflow obstruction (p<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show the importance of using statistically derived spirometric criteria to identify airflow obstruction.