Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

The new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension: evidence prevails, finally!

Marius M. Hoeper, Marc Humbert
European Respiratory Journal 2019 53: 1900038; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00038-2019
Marius M. Hoeper
1Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School and German Center of Lung Research (DZL), Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marius M. Hoeper
Marc Humbert
2Faculté de Médecine, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
3INSERM UMR_S 999, Le Plessis-Robinson, France
4Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marc Humbert
  • For correspondence: hoeper.marius@mh-hannover.de
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The proposal to redefine pulmonary hypertension by lowering the mean pulmonary artery pressure threshold from 25 mmHg to 20 mmHg is supported by strong scientific evidence http://ow.ly/eajR30nHA2E

Since the 1st World Health Organization Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension, which took place in 1973 in Geneva, Switzerland, every medical student around the world learnt, or at least should have learnt, that pulmonary hypertension (PH) is defined by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≥25 mmHg at rest (in fact, the original cut-off was >25 mmHg [1, 2], but was changed to ≥25 mmHg during the 4th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension, held in 2009 in Dana Point, CA, USA [3, 4]).

During the 6th World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension, which took place in 2018 in Nice, France, a working group led by G. Simonneau proposed revising the haemodynamic definition of PH and lowering the threshold from ≥25 mmHg to >20 mmHg [5]. To many participants, this proposal came as surprise and critical voices were raised arguing that there is no need to change the PH definition, that the old definition was the basis of all treatment trials, that we don't know how to treat patients with mPAP between 20 and 24 mmHg, and that the new definition may lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of PH.

Some of these concerns are reasonable, others not, but we will come back to this later. First, we need to underscore where the 25 mmHg threshold came from [5]. The 1973 WHO conference was held in the aftermath of an epidemic of so-called primary PH in Germany, Austria and Switzerland that was caused by aminorex fumarate, an anorexigen [6]. The conference was focused primary on PH while most other forms of PH were not addressed in detail. In the proceedings from this meeting, the authors stated that the mean pressure in the pulmonary artery does not normally exceed 15 mmHg when the subject is at rest in a lying position. This value is little affected by age and never exceeds 20 mmHg. Hypertension is definitely present if the pressure exceeds 25 mmHg [1]. Hence, the participants of the Geneva conference acknowledged that 20 mmHg is the upper limit of normal, which was later confirmed by Kovacs et al. [7] in a systemic review of the available evidence, rigorously showing that normal mPAP is 14.0 mmHg with a standard deviation of 3.3 mmHg. Thus, the 25 mmHg threshold was pragmatic, not scientific, in order to discriminate rare but severe cases of primary PH from other more common causes of PH due to chronic lung or heart diseases, which usually present with much lower mPAP.

We have been aware for many years of the gap between 20 mmHg, the upper level of normal, and 25 mmHg, our old PH threshold. In Dana Point, we discussed and rejected introducing the term “borderline PH” for mPAP from 21 to 24 mmHg [8], but the voices calling for a new PH definition became louder [9]. What has led Simonneau et al. [5] to propose the change now? Well, the evidence that mildly elevated mPAP is associated with morbidity and mortality has simply become too strong to ignore any longer, and consistent data come from pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as well as from other forms of PH.

Accumulating evidence from PAH associated with systemic sclerosis is teaching us that patients with mPAP between 21 and 24 mmHg have symptoms comparable to those who fulfil the classic definition, have an increased risk to progress to ≥25 mmHg and have a higher mortality than patients with mPAP ≤20 mmHg [10–13]. Although these data have been known for several years, there is still no recommendation to treat these patients before their mPAP reaches 25 mmHg. For patients with systemic sclerosis, symptoms of PAH and mPAP between 21 and 24 mmHg, this created the paradoxical situation that early PAH was evidently present but treatment not “permitted” because of lack of randomised controlled data due to inclusion criteria based on a biased PH definition, while, at the same time, the community was calling for early diagnosis and even introduced screening programmes [14–16]. The new definition will help these patients to receive proper management and will facilitate their inclusion in future clinical trials.

In recent years, early detection programmes have also been offered to patients with heritable PAH with identification of early pulmonary vascular disease relentlessly progressing to severe disease [17, 18]. Similarly, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is another major pre-capillary pulmonary vascular disease where mPAP below 25 mmHg is associated with significant exercise limitation, progressive haemodynamic compromise and poor outcomes [19]. Major improvements after successful desobliteration argue for therapeutic interventions in selected patients with symptomatic pulmonary vascular disease but mPAP <25 mmHg [20, 21].

Perhaps even more importantly, while the PH field has focused for many years on PAH and CTEPH, two relatively rare forms of PH, we came to learn that the largest PH burden is carried by patients with chronic left heart diseases and chronic lung diseases and that in these conditions, the development of PH is associated with a 2–3 fold increased mortality risk [22]. Hence, our focus has to broaden and has to include these forms of PH as well, and for that we need an evidence-based, comprehensive haemodynamic definition.

And the evidence is there, strong and clear. For patients with chronic lung diseases, it has been known for some time that even mildly elevated PH pressures are associated with an increased risk of death [23, 24]. More recently, similar observations have been made in mixed patient populations [25]. In the largest series so far, Maron et al. [26], analysing data of more than 21 000 patients from the US veteran's system, found that the hazard ratio of death for patients with mPAP between 19 and 24 mmHg compared to those with a mPAP <19 mmHg was 1.23 (95% CI 1.12–1.36; p<0.001). Of note, these patients were not suffering from PAH. These were patients we encounter much more frequently in daily practice, i.e. mostly elderly patients of whom approximately 75% had left heart disease and about 30% COPD. The findings of Maron et al. [26] were confirmed by the Vanderbilt group, who analysed data from 4343 patients and found an increased risk of death for patients with mPAP of 19–24 mmHg compared to patients with mPAP <19 mmHg (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04–1.65; p<0.001) [27].

Taken together, the revised definition is strongly supported by evidence, but does it also come with an increased likelihood of patients being misdiagnosed and mistreated as PH? The answer is probably yes and no at the same time. Yes, because some less experienced physicians may misinterpret the new definition and inappropriately treat (more) patients with drugs approved for PAH; and no, because a diagnosis of PH does not imply a treatment indication per se but requires a sophisticated work-up in expert centres, as strongly recommended in PH guidelines [28, 29]. Expert centres should be able to make a correct diagnosis and treatment decision independently of the old or new haemodynamic definition.

No single cut-off value is perfect. Moving it to the right, or in case of PH, leaving it at 25 mmHg, lowers the likelihood that patients are wrongly labelled with PH but increases the likelihood that patients who suffer from PH (or PAH) have their condition not diagnosed and not treated. The systemic sclerosis example mentioned earlier should teach us a lesson. Opponents may argue that lowering the threshold to 20 mmHg increases the likelihood of over-diagnosing PH, but again, the evidence is incontrovertible that anything above 20 mmHg is not normal and associated with an increased mortality risk. Over-treatment? For PH associated with left heart disease and lung disease, even with the current definition we have no specific PH treatment [30, 31], so the revised definition should not change anything, except for better identifying patients in need of a therapy and helping to include them into future clinical trials. For pre-capillary PH, especially PAH, Simonneau et al. [5] reinforced the requirement of a pulmonary vascular resistance ≥3 Wood units, which is currently the best criterion for pre-capillary pulmonary vascular disease. Hence, the revised definition will have little effect on how we treat patients with PH today, but it will foster future research that no longer leaves behind a sizeable and important group of patients in need for better treatments.

In summary, there is no debate that the upper limit of normal mPAP is 20 mmHg and that any value above that is abnormal. There is no debate either that this cut-off value does not define a disease per se. An elevated mPAP can have different causes, such as an increased cardiac output, left to right cardiac shunts, elevated pulmonary artery wedge pressure due to left heart disease, increased blood viscosity and, in a minority of cases, a true pre-capillary pulmonary vascular disease. Pre-capillary PH due to pulmonary vascular disease will be diagnosed when mPAP >20 mmHg is associated with abnormal PVR ≥3 Wood units. With such a conservative approach, retrospective analysis of large registries from expert pulmonary vascular centres showed that the number of patients diagnosed with pre-capillary PH would increase by less than 10% with the revised haemodynamic definition (G. Simonneau, H-A. Ghofrani and R. Souza, personal communication). This number will have to be confirmed in prospective registries. Additionally, as stated by the task force members, a change in the haemodynamic definition of PH due to pulmonary vascular diseases does not imply treating these additional patients, but highlights the importance of further research, close monitoring and individualised management [5]. Last but not least, mPAP >20 mmHg is a biomarker of worse outcomes in different settings, irrespective of the presence of a treatable pulmonary vascular disease, for example in the highly prevalent PH groups due to left heart diseases and/or chronic lung diseases. With all these considerations at hand, Simonneau et al. [5] had no reasonable choice other than to propose redefining PH and they are to be congratulated for making this long-awaited decision.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: M.M. Hoeper reports personal fees for speaking/consultancy from Actelion, Bayer, GSK and MSD.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Humbert reports personal fees for speaking/consultancy from Actelion, MSD and United Therapeutics, and grants and personal fees for speaking/consultancy from Bayer and GSK.

  • Received January 7, 2019.
  • Accepted January 23, 2019.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2019
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hatano S,
    2. Strasser T
    . Primary pulmonary hypertension: Report on a WHO meeting, Geneva 15–17 October 1973. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1975.
  2. ↵
    1. Galie N,
    2. Torbicki A,
    3. Barst R, et al.
    Guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The Task Force on Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2004; 25: 2243–2278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Badesch DB,
    2. Champion HC,
    3. Sanchez MA, et al.
    Diagnosis and assessment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: Suppl. 1, S55–S66.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Galie N,
    2. Hoeper MM,
    3. Humbert M, et al.
    Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), endorsed by the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2493–2537.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Simonneau G,
    2. Montani D,
    3. Celermajer DS, et al.
    Haemodynamic definitions and updated clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1801913.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Gurtner HP
    . Haufung der primar vaskularen pulmonalen Hypertonie in der Schweiz 1967–1970. Schlusswort. [Accumulation of primary vascular pulmonary hypertension in Switzerland during 1967–1970. Concluding remarks]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1970; 100: 2158–2159.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kovacs G,
    2. Berghold A,
    3. Scheidl S, et al.
    Pulmonary arterial pressure during rest and exercise in healthy subjects: a systematic review. Eur Respir J 2009; 34: 888–894.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Hoeper MM,
    2. Bogaard HJ,
    3. Condliffe R, et al.
    Definitions and diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: Suppl. 25, D42–D50.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Maron BA,
    2. Brittain EL,
    3. Choudhary G, et al.
    Redefining pulmonary hypertension. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6: 168–170.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Valerio CJ,
    2. Schreiber BE,
    3. Handler CE, et al.
    Borderline mean pulmonary artery pressure in patients with systemic sclerosis: transpulmonary gradient predicts risk of developing pulmonary hypertension. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65: 1074–1084.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kovacs G,
    2. Maier R,
    3. Aberer E, et al.
    Borderline pulmonary arterial pressure is associated with decreased exercise capacity in scleroderma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180: 881–886.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Bae S,
    2. Saggar R,
    3. Bolster MB, et al.
    Baseline characteristics and follow-up in patients with normal haemodynamics versus borderline mean pulmonary arterial pressure in systemic sclerosis: results from the PHAROS registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 1335–1342.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Stamm A,
    2. Saxer S,
    3. Lichtblau M, et al.
    Exercise pulmonary haemodynamics predict outcome in patients with systemic sclerosis. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 1658–1667.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Hachulla E,
    2. Gressin V,
    3. Guillevin L, et al.
    Early detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension in systemic sclerosis: a French nationwide prospective multicenter study. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52: 3792–3800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Humbert M,
    2. Yaici A,
    3. de Groote P, et al.
    Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension in patients with systemic sclerosis: clinical characteristics at diagnosis and long-term survival. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 3522–3530.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Coghlan JG,
    2. Denton CP,
    3. Grunig E, et al.
    Evidence-based detection of pulmonary arterial hypertension in systemic sclerosis: the DETECT study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73: 1340–1349.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Montani D,
    2. Dorfmuller P,
    3. Girerd B, et al.
    Natural history over 8 years of pulmonary vascular disease in a patient carrying biallelic EIF2AK4 mutations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: 537–541.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Girerd B,
    2. Montani D,
    3. Jais X, et al.
    Genetic counselling in a national referral centre for pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 541–552.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Kim NH,
    2. Delcroix M,
    3. Jais X, et al.
    Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1801915.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Taboada D,
    2. Pepke-Zaba J,
    3. Jenkins DP, et al.
    Outcome of pulmonary endarterectomy in symptomatic chronic thromboembolic disease. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1635–1645.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Guth S,
    2. Wiedenroth CB,
    3. Rieth A, et al.
    Exercise right heart catheterization before and after pulmonary endarterectomy in patients with chronic thromboembolic disease. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 180458.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Hoeper MM,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Souza R, et al.
    A global view of pulmonary hypertension. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 306–322.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Hamada K,
    2. Nagai S,
    3. Tanaka S, et al.
    Significance of pulmonary arterial pressure and diffusion capacity of the lung as prognosticator in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest 2007; 131: 650–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Weitzenblum E,
    2. Hirth C,
    3. Ducolone A, et al.
    Prognostic value of pulmonary artery pressure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1981; 36: 752–758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Douschan P,
    2. Kovacs G,
    3. Avian A, et al.
    Mild elevation of pulmonary arterial pressure as a predictor of mortality. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197: 509–516.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Maron BA,
    2. Hess E,
    3. Maddox TM, et al.
    Association of borderline pulmonary hypertension with mortality and hospitalization in a large patient cohort: insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. Circulation 2016; 133: 1240–1248.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Assad TR,
    2. Maron BA,
    3. Robbins IM, et al.
    Prognostic effect and longitudinal hemodynamic assessment of borderline pulmonary hypertension. JAMA Cardiol 2017; 2: 1361–1368.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Galie N,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Vachiery JL, et al.
    2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 903–975.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Galie N,
    2. Humbert M,
    3. Vachiery JL, et al.
    2015 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 67–119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Vachiery JL,
    2. Tedford RJ,
    3. Rosenkranz S, et al.
    Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1801897.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Nathan SD,
    2. Barbera JA,
    3. Gaine SP, et al.
    Pulmonary hypertension in chronic lung disease and hypoxia. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1801914.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 53 Issue 3 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 53 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension: evidence prevails, finally!
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
The new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension: evidence prevails, finally!
Marius M. Hoeper, Marc Humbert
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2019, 53 (3) 1900038; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00038-2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The new haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension: evidence prevails, finally!
Marius M. Hoeper, Marc Humbert
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2019, 53 (3) 1900038; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00038-2019
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Should we rewrite the natural history and prognosis of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis?
  • The importance of collecting relevant samples to understand complex diseases
  • Sing out for COPD!
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society