We selected patients with CTEPH (age 20–85 years) as confirmed by a pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scan, pulmonary angiography and a chest computed tomography scan, two or more of which revealed areas of deficient pulmonary blood flow. Pulmonary haemodynamic variables at rest, as determined by right heart catheterisation, were set as the baseline. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) was set at ≥25 mmHg; the pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) was set at ≤15 mmHg; and PVR was set at >360 dyn·s·cm−5. The population consisted of patients who could not undergo PEA due to the presence of organised peripheral thrombus. This study also included patients who could not undergo PEA due to their high risk (e.g. comorbidities or old age), or for other reasons (e.g. refusal to undergo surgery). These disease classifications were assessed by each investigator at their own institution. The population also consisted of some patients who had persistent or recurrent PH after PEA or BPA. Those who had received prostacyclin and/or its derivatives were excluded. Concomitant use of riociguat, an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor or a calcium antagonist was allowed if the doses administered had been stable for ≥90 days before the baseline right heart catheterisation and it was maintained until the end of this double-blind study. While patients who had undergone PEA and/or BPA were included, PEA and BPA were not allowed during the study. Details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in the supplementary material. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles set out by the institutional human ethics committees of the participating facilities or regions and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design was approved by the institutional review board at each study site, including the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Centre (reference number #924). All subjects provided written informed consent to participate in the study.
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Other organizations :
National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Okayama Medical Center, National Hospital Organization, Kyoto University, Chiba University, Kyushu University, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Shinshu University, Gunma University, Kitasato University, Yamaguchi Prefecture Central Hospital, University of Toyama, University of Tokyo Hospital, Kanazawa Medical Center, Yokohama City University, Hokkaido University Hospital, Tokai University, Nippon Shinyaku (Japan), Chibaken Saiseikai Narashino Hospital
Chest computed tomography scan (two or more revealing areas of deficient pulmonary blood flow)
Right heart catheterisation (to determine pulmonary haemodynamic variables at rest)
Patients who could not undergo pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) due to the presence of organised peripheral thrombus, high risk (e.g., comorbidities or old age), or other reasons (e.g., refusal to undergo surgery)
Patients who had persistent or recurrent pulmonary hypertension (PH) after PEA or balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA)
Concomitant use of riociguat, an endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA), a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor or a calcium antagonist (if the doses were stable for ≥90 days before the baseline right heart catheterisation and maintained until the end of the study)
No PEA and/or BPA during the study
negative controls
Patients who had received prostacyclin and/or its derivatives were excluded
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required