TY - JOUR T1 - Correspondence on the debate regarding the haemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension JF - European Respiratory Journal JO - Eur Respir J DO - 10.1183/13993003.00727-2019 VL - 53 IS - 6 SP - 1900727 AU - Bradley A. Maron AU - Gaurav Choudhary AU - Ryan J. Tedford AU - Evan Brittain Y1 - 2019/06/01 UR - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/53/6/1900727.abstract N2 - 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 ER -