4.1 Review

Sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN PULMONARY MEDICINE
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 531-537

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCP.0b013e328363f4a3

Keywords

endothelin antagonist; pulmonary hemodynamics; pulmonary hypertension; pulmonary vasodilators; sarcoidosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of reviewPulmonary hypertension is a serious complication of sarcoidosis. This review discusses clinical characteristics of patients with sarcoid-associated pulmonary hypertension (SAPH) and pitfalls in the diagnosis, and highlights potential therapies.Recent findingsSAPH is common in patients with advanced disease, but it can occur in patients with minimal disease burden. Risk factors for SAPH include restrictive lung physiology, hypoxemia, advanced Scadding chest X-ray stage, and low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity. Echocardiogram is a good initial screening tool in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension, but right heart catheterization is necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Treatment with pulmonary vasodilators, including endothelin antagonists, can lead to improvements in pulmonary hemodynamics in some patients but may not improve their exercise capacity. Forced vital capacity is an important predictor of exercise performance in patients with SAPH. Clinical observations and response to specific therapies for pulmonary hypertension suggest the presence of different SAPH phenotypes.SummaryPatients who complain of persistent dyspnea should be screened for the presence of pulmonary hypertension. The prognosis of SAPH is poor and it is prudent to consider referral of these patients for lung transplantation. In some patients with SAPH, treatment with anti-inflammatory agents and pulmonary vasodilators can lower pulmonary arterial pressures, improve dyspnea and functionality, and enhance overall quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available