Pro-Con debate session 1

29 July 2021

A PVRI 2024 Digital webinar

Presentations 

  • A hopeless cause: The pulmonary vasculature is largely gone and irredeemable in PAH, Peter Dorfmüller
  • Remnants of lost pulmonary vasculature may be re-engaged in PAH, Duncan Stewart
  • Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should be treated with PAH approved drugs, David Systrom
  • Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should NOT be treated with PAH approved drugs, Roham Zamanian

Polls

Topic A

Which statement do you agree with?

PRO: A hopeless cause: The pulmonary vasculature is largely gone and irredeemable in PAH - 12.82%

CON: Remnants of lost pulmonary vasculature may be re-engaged in PAH - 87.18%

 

2. Now you have heard the debate, which statement do you agree with?

PRO: A hopeless cause: The pulmonary vasculature is largely gone and irredeemable in PAH - 5%

CON: Remnants of lost pulmonary vasculature may be re-engaged in PAH - 95%

 

Topic B

3. Which statement do you agree with?

PRO: Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should be treated with PAH approved drugs - 69%

CON: Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should NOT be treated with PAH approved drugs - 31%

 

4. Now you have heard the debate, which statement do you agree with?

PRO: Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should be treated with PAH approved drugs - 45.16%

CON: Patients with mild pulmonary hypertension (mPAP 21-24) should NOT be treated with PAH approved drugs - 54.84%

Speakers & moderators

Peter Dorfmüller, Justus Liebig University Giessen
Duncan Stewart, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
David Systrom, Brigham and Women's Hospital
Roham Zamanian, Stanford University
Share:
Additional comments are available to members. Login or register to become a member today