Pro-Con debate session 1

29 July 2021

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

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%

Peter Dorfmüller, Justus Liebig University Giessen

Duncan Stewart, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

David Systrom, Brigham and Women's Hospital

Roham Zamanian, Stanford University

Speakers & moderators