ArticlePloS one2026
Residual physiological abnormalities after pulmonary endarterectomy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty in CTEPH.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the first-line treatment for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), while balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) is an established alternative for inoperable patients. Although both interventions improve resting pulmonary hemodynamics, the extent of long-term physiological recovery during exercise and the persistence of functional limitations remain incompletely characterized.
methodsProspective single-center registry (2017-2023) including 14 patients completing BPA (71 sessions) and 15 undergoing PEA, with median follow-up of 50 months (IQR 36-61). Clinical assessment included resting hemodynamics, invasive exercise right heart catheterization to derive the exercise slope of the mean pulmonary arterial pressure to cardiac output relashionship (mPAP/CO slope), and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) evaluated using the SF-36 questionnaire. Analyses were descriptive and focused on within-pathway changes over time.
resultsBoth BPA and PEA significantly reduced mPAP (44.8 ± 12.4 → 26.1 ± 9.3 mmHg; 42.1 ± 12.9 → 22.6 ± 5.4 mmHg, both p < 0.001) and pulmonary vascular resistance (9.8 ± 4.6 → 3.0 ± 1.3 WU; 9.0 ± 5.4 → 2.9 ± 1.9 WU, both p < 0.001) at long term follow-up. Despite sustained improvements in resting hemodynamics, abnormal exercise pulmonary vascular responses persisted, with mean mPAP/CO slopes of 7.0 ± 5.6 mmHg/L/min after BPA and 4.0 ± 2.3 mmHg/L/min after PEA. Physical HRQOL remained impaired at long-term follow-up, with Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores below population norms in both pathways (44.4 ± 12.7 after BPA and 44.5 ± 7.3 after PEA).
conclusionBPA and PEA provide durable improvements in resting pulmonary hemodynamics; however, incomplete physiological recovery is common, with persistent exercise abnormalities and reduced physical quality of life at long-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.