Responses

Original research
Continuous heart monitoring to evaluate treatment effects in pulmonary hypertension
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Implantable Loop Recorder In Pulmonary Hypertension Patients: “Not All The Glitters Is Gold”
    • Tommaso Recchioni, Cardiology Resident Department of Clinical, Anesthesiological and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
    • Other Contributors:
      • Alexandra Mihai, Cardiology Resident
      • Giovanna Manzi, Cardiologist

    Dear Editor,
    we have curiously read the prospective study conducted by Mads Ørbæk Andersen and colleagues evaluating treatment effects on heart rate variability (HRV), HR and physical activity, with the use of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for continuous heart monitoring. The authors enrolled 27 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and 14 patients with chronic thrombo-embolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). The 15 (36.6%) patients needing treatment escalation were older and had higher NT-proBNP values, higher WHO-functional class, lower exercise tolerance and worse right ventricular function assessed by echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance compared to the other 26 patients. Moreover, the escalation group patients experienced a significant increase in HRV and physical activity, a significant decrease in HR nighttime and a parallel improvement in the three parameters included in the COMPERA 2.0 risk assessment compared to the non-escalation cohort [1].

    As already reported in the limitations of the paper, the small population including mixed pulmonary hypertension etiologies and the design of the study limit the strength and the generalizability of the results. However, it invites PAH specialists to make interesting speculations.

    1. The proposal to consider HRV as a biomarker of PAH treatment response or as a potential primary endpoint of clinical trials is questionable, since it seems to set aside the pivotal role of the ri...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.