％0期刊论文％A Ruigrok，Dieuwertje％A Meijboom，莉莲J.％A Nossent，以斯帖J.％A Boonstra，安科％A Braams，纳塔利娅J.％A面包车Wezenbeek，杰西％A德曼，弗朗西丝S.％对于CTEPH％d 2020％R 10.1183 / 13993003.00109-2020％Ĵ欧洲呼吸杂志％肺动脉内膜切除术之后马库斯，J.添％A Vonk Noordegraaf，安东％A Symersky，彼得％A Bogaard，危害-JAN％T永久运动不耐受P 2000109％X目的血流动力学正常化为慢性血栓栓塞性肺动脉高压（CTEPH）肺动脉内膜切除术（PEA）的最终目标。然而，血流动力学的正常化是否转化为运动能力正常化是未知的。发病率，决定因素和PEA后的运动耐受的临床意义是未知的。我们进行了前瞻性分析，以确定运动耐受PEA后发病，评估运动能力和（休息）血流动力学之间的关系，并PEA.Methods后搜索的运动耐受手术前预测根据临床方案所有患者均接受心肺运动试验（CPET), right heart catheterisation (RHC) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging before and 6 months after PEA. Exercise intolerance was defined as a peak VO2<80% predicted. CPET parameters were judged to determine the cause of exercise limitation. Relationships were analysed between exercise intolerance and resting hemodynamics and CMR-derived right ventricular (RV) function. Potential preoperative predictors of exercise intolerance were analysed using logistic regression analysis.Results 68 patients were included in the final analysis. 45 patients (66%) had exercise intolerance 6 months after PEA; in 20 patients this was primarily caused by a cardiovascular limitation. The incidence of residual PH was significantly higher in patients with persistent exercise intolerance (p 0.001). However, 27 out of 45 patients with persistent exercise intolerance had no residual PH. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative transfer factor for carbon monoxide (TLCO) was the only predictor of exercise intolerance after PEA.Conclusions The majority of CTEPH patients has exercise intolerance after PEA, often despite normalisation of resting hemodynamics. Not all exercise intolerance after PEA is explained by the presence of residual PH, and lower preoperative TLCO was a strong predictor of exercise intolerance 6 months after PEA.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dr. Ruigrok has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Meijboom has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Nossent has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Boonstra has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Braams has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. van Wezenbeek has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. de Man has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Marcus has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Vonk Noordegraaf reports grants from Actelion, grants from GSK, grants from Pfizer, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work.Conflict of interest: Dr. Symersky has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Bogaard reports grants from Actelion, grants from GSK, grants from Pfizer, grants from Bayer, grants from Therabel, outside the submitted work. %U //www.qdcxjkg.com/content/erj/early/2020/03/12/13993003.00109-2020.full.pdf