Left Ventricular Pressure Ratio Predicts In-Hospital Outcomes in Hospitalized Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.
cardiac catheterization
heart failure
invasive hemodynamics
Journal
The Journal of invasive cardiology
ISSN: 1557-2501
Titre abrégé: J Invasive Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8917477
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
22
6
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
21
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Given the risk of hemodynamic compromise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients undergoing left heart catheterization (LHC), there is a need for a simple parameter that can predict clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that left ventricular pressure ratio (LVPR), calculated as left ventricle systolic/left ventricle end-diastolic pressure, is a strong predictor of hemodynamic collapse in these patients. Retrospective analysis of consecutive hospitalized HFrEF patients undergoing combined LHC and right heart catheterization (RHC) at a single institution from 2015-2017 was performed. LVPR was compared with standard RHC hemodynamic variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital escalation of therapy, defined as ≥40 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP), SBP ≤90 mm Hg for ≥15 minutes, start or escalation of vasoactive medications, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in-hospital death. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were performed for prediction of the primary outcome. A total of 176 patients were included in this study. ROC analysis determined an optimal cut-off value of ≤3.96, which correlated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 (sensitivity, 45.9%; specificity, 83.2%; correctly classified, 64.9%). AUC was similar to other variables obtained using RHC. In-hospital survival free of escalation of therapy was lower in the low LVPR group vs the high LVPR group (0% vs 33%, respectively; P<.01). LVPR is an easily measured index obtained during LHC that can risk stratify hospitalized patients with HFrEF at the time of LHC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Given the risk of hemodynamic compromise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients undergoing left heart catheterization (LHC), there is a need for a simple parameter that can predict clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that left ventricular pressure ratio (LVPR), calculated as left ventricle systolic/left ventricle end-diastolic pressure, is a strong predictor of hemodynamic collapse in these patients.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of consecutive hospitalized HFrEF patients undergoing combined LHC and right heart catheterization (RHC) at a single institution from 2015-2017 was performed. LVPR was compared with standard RHC hemodynamic variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital escalation of therapy, defined as ≥40 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP), SBP ≤90 mm Hg for ≥15 minutes, start or escalation of vasoactive medications, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in-hospital death. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were performed for prediction of the primary outcome.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 176 patients were included in this study. ROC analysis determined an optimal cut-off value of ≤3.96, which correlated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 (sensitivity, 45.9%; specificity, 83.2%; correctly classified, 64.9%). AUC was similar to other variables obtained using RHC. In-hospital survival free of escalation of therapy was lower in the low LVPR group vs the high LVPR group (0% vs 33%, respectively; P<.01).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
LVPR is an easily measured index obtained during LHC that can risk stratify hospitalized patients with HFrEF at the time of LHC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34148868
pii: JIC20210616-1
pmc: PMC9125341
mid: NIHMS1796386
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E507-E515Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL007381
Pays : United States
Références
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2011 Aug;104(8-9):435-43
pubmed: 21944145
Circulation. 2013 Jan 15;127(2):207-12
pubmed: 23224207
JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294(13):1625-33
pubmed: 16204662
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8(1):5-11
pubmed: 7060118
Am Heart J. 2006 Jan;151(1):69-75
pubmed: 16368294
Diabetologia. 2018 Mar;61(3):722-726
pubmed: 29197997
Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1717-27
pubmed: 22935569
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1;2(10):1090-1099
pubmed: 28877293
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015 Jun;4(3):270-7
pubmed: 25425723
Can J Cardiol. 2011 Nov-Dec;27(6):739-42
pubmed: 21944278
JAMA. 2010 Aug 25;304(8):867-74
pubmed: 20736470
Am Heart J. 2003 Apr;145(4):700-7
pubmed: 12679768
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1068-74
pubmed: 21798494
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 24;69(3):278-287
pubmed: 27810347
Am Heart J. 2013 Nov;166(5):913-9
pubmed: 24176448
J Card Fail. 2016 Mar;22(3):182-9
pubmed: 26703245
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 May 19;65(19):e7-e26
pubmed: 25861963
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1287-96
pubmed: 22920912
Am J Cardiol. 2014 Dec 1;114(11):1758-62
pubmed: 25316348
Am Heart J. 2009 Oct;158(4):680-7
pubmed: 19781431
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Sep 1;90(3):389-395
pubmed: 28303647