Biomarker-specific differences between transpulmonary and peripheral arterial-venous blood sampling in patients with pulmonary hypertension.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Transpulmonary biomarkers may provide insight into pulmonary hypertension (PH) pathophysiology, but require cardiac catheterization. We investigated whether the peripheral arterial-venous ratio (PR) could substitute for the transpulmonary ratio (TPR).Materials and methods: Blood from the pulmonary artery (PA), pulmonary arterial wedge (PAW), peripheral venous, and peripheral arterial positions was analysed for ET-1, NT-pro-BNP and cAMP levels in subjects with no PH (n = 18) and PH due to left heart disease (PH-LHD), which included combined pre- and post-capillary PH (Cpc-PH; n = 7) and isolated post-capillary PH (Ipc-PH; n = 9). Bland-Altman comparisons were made between peripheral venous and PA samples and between peripheral arterial and PAW samples. TPR was defined as [PAW]/[PA].Results: For ET-1, Bland-Altman analysis indicated negative bias (-24%) in peripheral arterial compared to PAW concentration and positive bias (23%) in peripheral venous compared to PA concentration. There was <10% absolute bias for NT-pro-BNP and cAMP. For ET-1, there was no difference in PR between Cpc-PH and Ipc-PH (0.87 ± 0.4 vs. 0.94 ± 0.6, p = 0.8), whereas there was a difference in TPR (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2, p < 0.05).Conclusions: In PH-LHD, peripheral samples may be inadequate surrogates for transpulmonary samples, particularly when measuring mediators with prominent pulmonary secretion or clearance, such as ET-1.