Talk:Pulmonary hypertension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Nile Rvier?

I am a layman but can someone verfiy or make clearer the following statement in the article? Is the Nile revier an endemic area? I am confused by the statement. "Schistosomiasis is a very common cause of pulmonary hypertension in endemic areas such as the Nile river due to obstruction of pulmonary vessels with the parasite." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how common it is, but as a cause it is certainly reported. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of pulmonary hypertension

There may be a bit of confusion as to the causes of pulmonary hypertension. Whlie the most common cause of right-sided heart failure is left-sided heart failure, the most common cause of pulmonary hypertension is chronic lung disease (ie: COPD). Ksheka 13:57, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, re-reading it did seem confusing. I was trying to be general by just referring to the collective term of obstructive lung disease, but the update makes it read much better. --Lacrimosa 08:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Those interested in the pathogenesis of pulmonary hypertension and the latest research on this disease may want to read this:
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension - Future Directions: Report of a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute/Office of Rare Diseases Workshop by Newman et al., Circulation. 2004;109:2947-2952 -- PFHLai 22:18, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Here's another: Cellular and molecular pathobiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension by Humbert et al., Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43(12 Supp.1):S13-S24 -- PFHLai 07:07, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Ehh, PFHLai, if that is from a supplement, then the whole supplement is probably worth reading (a personal rule of thumb). JFW | T@lk 12:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yeah... thanks for reminding. Here's the table of contents of the supplement. There are indeed many relevant reviews. -- PFHLai 19:04, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

[edit] Units

Writing millimetres of mercury as "mmHg" is incorrect. The rules for SI units (as expressed in ISO 31 and ISO 1000) make it clear that information should not be mixed with units. See #11 at

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html

I've changed it to mm except when it is introduced.

The conversion of Woods Units to CGS (i.e. obsolete metric) instead of SI is pretty strange, so I've converted it to SI. Blaise 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lung transplant survival time

"Lung transplantation ... leaves the patient with ... a survival of about 5 years." Not anymore? I believe significant advances have been made in this area so that the survival after a transplant is typically much longer (as much as 15 - 20 years). I'm not 100% so I won't edit the page at this point, but if someone could verify this with a source that'd be good, or verify the current contents and cite it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.61.3 (talk • contribs)

The latest statistics I can easily find are a 5 year survival rate of 45% for all transplants, from the latest Merck Manual, as mentioned in Lung transplantation, but there is a certain lag time too in how current information gets into the book. --Kyoko 12:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs better explanation of venous vs. arterial hypertension

Hello, I believe that the article needs a better explanation of the difference between pulmonary venous hypertension vs. pulmonary arterial hypertension, and I don't feel capable of doing that myself. Thanks for any help. --Kyoko 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "New approach to pulmonary hypertension shows promise"

A number of abnormalities, formerly thought to be unrelated, do have a common denominator: nuclear-factor-of-activated-T-lymphocytes (NFAT). "...Therefore, by attacking NFAT, the 'common denominator' of these abnormalities, you might be able to treat them all at once..." [1] Brian Pearson 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathogenesis link question

Hello, currently the first sentence of this section links to vasoconstrictor and not vasoconstriction. While I think the article should link to vasoconstrictor, I was reluctant to change this because the latter article is not yet well developed. Neither article has much content anyway. Which do you think is a better link? Thanks. --Kyoko 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say: I had asked this in a hidden comment in the article but I decided to ask it here. I forgot to change my edit summary for my last edit to the article. --Kyoko 05:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cteph

Does anyone know why Cteph isn't a simple redirect to this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is now. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need for structure

The article is quite well-referenced, but the "causes" section is just an unorganised pile of stuff. I see no reason why we can't use the WHO/Venice classification as a starting point for a useful list of causes. We should also list in a more useful way the kind of tests clinicians use when faced with a new diagnosis of PAH. I realise that this is a very individual thing, but we should mention the use of a right-sided heart catheterisation, HRCT and CTPA (or invasive pulmonary angiography), autoantibody tests and possibly genetic studies. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasis on HIV and haemolysis

With patients with HIV and sickle-cell disease surviving their illness much longer, PAH as a long-term complication has come to the foreground - http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/3/324 JFW | T@lk 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful review

The following review in Am J Resp Crit Care Med is very recent and free: doi:10.1164/rccm.200801-029UP. I'm not sure if it should be the main background source (it is almost entirely built on citations from other reviews and some primary research studies). The comments on the poverty of epidemiology data are sobering. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)