Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of pulmonary hypertension.

The coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted delivery of healthcare. Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), especially pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), require significant resources for both diagnosis and management and are at high risk for decompensation due to disruption in their care. A survey consisting of 47 questions related to the care of patients with PH was designed by the American College of Chest Physicians 2020-2021 Pulmonary Vascular Disease (PVD) NetWork Steering Committee and sent to all members of the PVD NetWork, as well as the multiple other professional networks for PH. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Responses were collected from November 2020 through February 2021. Ninety-five providers responded to this survey. The majority (93%) believe that care of PH patients has been affected by the pandemic. Sixty-seven percent observed decreased referrals for PH evaluation. Prior to the pandemic, only 15% used telemedicine for management of PH patients compared to 84% during the pandemic. Telemedicine was used most for follow up of selected low-risk patients (49%). While 22% respondents were completely willing to prescribe new PAH therapy via telemedicine, 11% respondents were completely unwilling. Comfort levels differed based on type of medication being prescribed. Over 90% of providers experienced disruptions in obtaining testing and 31% experienced disruptions in renewal or approval of medications. Overall, providers perceived that the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption of care for PH patients. Telemedicine utilization increased but was used mostly in low-risk patients. Some providers had a decreased level of comfort prescribing PAH therapy via telemedicine encounters.

Utilization of risk assessment tools in management of PAH: A PAH provider survey.

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronically progressive fatal disease. A goal-oriented approach to achieve low risk status has been associated with improved survival. A variety of risk stratification tools are available, but use is low. We conducted a survey to assess potential reasons for under-utilization. We conducted a survey-based study of global PAH disease specialists with a goal of assessing risk assessment utilization and identifying modifiable barriers to use. The survey was designed by the American College of Chest Physicians' Pulmonary Vascular Diseases (PVD) NetWork. Respondents were global members of the PVD NetWork and Pulmonary Hypertension Association. Survey invitations were sent electronically to all members. Participation was anonymous and no provider or patient level data was collected. Participants from four countries responded with the majority (84%) being from the United States. Our survey found suboptimal use of any risk stratification tool with 71/112 (63%) reporting use. A total of 85% of the respondents had more than 5 years of experience in managing PAH. REVEAL 2.0 and European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society risk tools were the most commonly used. A total of 44 (65%) surveyed felt that use of risk tools led to change in PAH therapies. Only 6 (9%) felt they prompted additional testing or changed the frequency of follow-up. A total of 5 (7%) reported they prompted goals of care/palliative care discussions and 2 (3%) that they triggered lung transplant referral. The vast majority indicated that incorporation of risk tools into electronic medical records (EMR) would improve utilization. PAH risk assessment tools remain under-utilized. Most respondents were experienced PAH clinicians. More than one-third were not routinely using risk tools. Most felt that risk tools led to PAH therapy changes but few reported impacts on other aspects of care. The most commonly identified barriers to use were time constraints and lack of integration with EMR.

Incidence, Clinical Correlates, and Outcomes of Pulmonary Hypertension After Kidney Transplantation: Analysis of Linked US Registry and Medicare Billing Claims.

BACKGROUND: The incidence, risks, and outcomes associated with pulmonary hypertension (P-HTN) in the kidney transplant (KTx) population are not well described. METHODS: We linked US transplant registry data with Medicare claims (2006-2016) to investigate P-HTN diagnoses among Medicare-insured KTx recipients (N = 35 512) using billing claims. Cox regression was applied to identify independent correlates and outcomes of P-HTN (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 95%LCLaHR95%UCL) and to examine P-HTN diagnoses as time-dependent mortality predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 8.2% of recipients had a diagnostic code for P-HTN within 2 y preceding transplant. By 3 y posttransplant, P-HTN was diagnosed in 10.310.6%11.0 of the study cohort. After adjustment, posttransplant P-HTN was more likely in KTx recipients who were older (age ≥60 versus 18-30 y a HR, 1.912.403.01) or female (aHR, 1.151.241.34), who had pretransplant P-HTN (aHR, 4.384.795.24), coronary artery disease (aHR, 1.051.151.27), valvular heart disease (aHR, 1.221.321.43), peripheral vascular disease (aHR, 1.051.181.33), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR, 1.201.311.43), obstructive sleep apnea (aHR, 1.151.281.43), longer dialysis duration, pretransplant hemodialysis (aHR, 1.171.371.59), or who underwent transplant in the more recent era (2012-2016 versus 2006-2011: aHR, 1.291.391.51). Posttransplant P-HTN was associated with >2.5-fold increased risk of mortality (aHR, 2.572.843.14) and all-cause graft failure (aHR, 2.422.642.88) within 3 y posttransplant. Outcome associations of newly diagnosed posttransplant P-HTN were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Posttransplant P-HTN is diagnosed in 1 in 10 KTx recipients and is associated with an increased risk of death and graft failure. Future research is needed to refine diagnostic, classification, and management strategies to improve outcomes in KTx recipients who develop P-HTN.

Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) 2017 Working Group Meeting Report.

The presence of preexisting (memory) or de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSAs) is a known barrier to successful long-term organ transplantation. Yet, despite the fact that laboratory tools and our understanding of histocompatibility have advanced significantly in recent years, the criteria to define presence of a DSA and assign a level of risk for a given DSA vary markedly between centers. A collaborative effort between the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics and the American Society of Transplantation provided the logistical support for generating a dedicated multidisciplinary working group, which included experts in histocompatibility as well as kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation. The goals were to perform a critical review of biologically driven, state-of-the-art, clinical diagnostics literature and to provide clinical practice recommendations based on expert assessment of quality and strength of evidence. The results of the Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) meeting are summarized here, providing recommendations on the definition and utilization of HLA diagnostic testing, and a framework for clinical assessment of risk for a memory or a primary alloimmune response. The definitions, recommendations, risk framework, and highlighted gaps in knowledge are intended to spur research that will inform the next STAR Working Group meeting in 2019.

Barriers to optimal palliative care of lung transplant candidates.

BACKGROUND: The provision of effective palliative care is of great importance to patients awaiting lung transplantation. Although the prospect of lung transplantation provides hope to patients and their families, these patients are usually very symptomatic from their underlying disease. METHODS: An e-mail questionnaire was sent to members of the American College of Chest Physicians' Transplant NetWork and the Pulmonary Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). The survey included questions about barriers to providing palliative care, the availability of palliative care services, and recommended strategies to improve palliative care for lung transplant candidates. RESULTS: The 158 respondents represented approximately 65% of transplant programs in the ISHLT registry. Respondents were in practice a mean of 11.3 (± 9) years, 70% were pulmonologists, 17% were surgeons, and 13% were other care providers. Barriers were classified into domains including patient factors, family factors, physician factors, and institutional/transplant program/lung allocation system factors. Significant patient/family barriers included unrealistic patient/family expectations about survival, unwillingness to plan end-of-life care, concerns about abandonment or inappropriate care after enrollment in a palliative care program, and family disagreements about care goals. For institutional/program/allocation system barriers, only the requirement for weight loss or gain to meet program-specific BMI requirements was identified. Significant physician barriers included competing time demands and the seemingly contradictory goals of transplant vs palliative care. Strategies recommended to improve palliative care included routine advance care planning for patients awaiting transplantation, access to palliative care specialists, training of transplant physicians in symptom management, and regular meetings among transplant physicians, nurses, patients, and families. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians providing care to lung transplant candidates reported considerable barriers to the delivery and acceptance of palliative care and identified specific strategies to improve palliative care for lung transplant candidates.