Balloon pulmonary angioplasty and Riociguat in the management of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review

Camões De Araújo, Patrícia; Calé, Rita; Pereira, Ernesto; Ferreira, Filipa; Alegria, Sofia; Pereira, Helder; Coelho, André

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/102002

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
Balloon_pulmonary_angioplasty.pdf		646.82 KB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Camões De Araújo, Patrícia

Abstract(s)

Background: No systematic review has been published comparing the effectiveness and safety of balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) and riociguat in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) across studies that evaluate both treatment methods. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Elsevier. Clinical, functional, and hemodynamic effectiveness criteria were analysed, as well as complications related to both interventions. Results: Five studies were reviewed, including randomized clinical trials and observational studies, comprising a total of 184 patients who underwent riociguat and BPA, 94 patients who underwent BPA alone, and 79 who underwent riociguat alone. Patients receiving combination therapy demonstrated a more significant improvement in WHO-FC, PVR, and CO (≈1.13 L/min) compared to monotherapy (BPA: ≈0.45 L/min and riociguat: ≈0.84 L/min). Regarding the 6MWD, patients who started with Riociguat before combination therapy showed a greater improvement (≈78 m) than those on monotherapy (BPA: ≈46.9 m and riociguat: ≈38.2 m). The reduction in mPAP was greater in patients treated with BPA alone (≈-17.6 mmHg) compared to riociguat alone (≈-5.4 mmHg) or combination therapy (≈-12.2 mmHg). In the BPA group, the rate of life-threatening complications was very low, with haemoptysis or pulmonary haemorrhage being the most common adverse events (15 %-44 %). In the riociguat group, dizziness, headaches, gastrointestinal reflux, vomiting, and nausea were reported (15 %-23 %). Among patients undergoing both treatments, the vascular injury rate was <11 %, with the most common adverse event being the need for non-invasive ventilation (30 %). Conclusions: Combination therapy appears to be more effective than monotherapy, without being associated to major adverse events in patients diagnosed with CTEPH.