Tricuspid Regurgitation Velocity and Mean Pressure Gradient for the Prediction of Pulmonary Hypertension According to the New Hemodynamic Definition.
echocardiography
pulmonary hypertension
right heart catheterization
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Aug 2023
08 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
04
07
2023
revised:
02
08
2023
accepted:
06
08
2023
medline:
26
8
2023
pubmed:
26
8
2023
entrez:
26
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The hemodynamic definition of PH has recently been revised with unchanged threshold of peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of peak TRV for PH based on the new (>20 mmHg) and the old (>25 mmHg) cut-off value for mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and to compare it with the mean right ventricular-right atrial (RV-RA) pressure gradient. Patients with advanced heart failure were screened from 2016 to 2021. The exclusion criteria were absent right heart catheterization (RHC) results, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, any septal defect, inadequate acoustic window or undetectable TR. The mean RV-RA gradient was calculated from the velocity-time integral of TR. The study included 41 patients; 34 (82.9%) had mPAP > 20 mmHg and 24 (58.5%) had mPAP > 25 mmHg. The AUC for the prediction of PH with mPAP > 20 mmHg was 0.855 for peak TRV and mean RV-RA gradient was 0.811. AUC for the prediction of PH defined as mPAP > 25 mmHg for peak TRV was 0.860 and for mean RV-RA gradient was 0.830. A cutoff value of 2.4 m/s for peak TRV had 65% sensitivity and 100% positive predictive value for predicting PH according to the new definition. Peak TRV performed better than mean RV-RA pressure gradient in predicting PH irrespective of hemodynamic definitions. Peak TRV performed similarly with the two definitions of PH, but a lower cutoff value had higher sensitivity and equal positive predictive value for PH.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The hemodynamic definition of PH has recently been revised with unchanged threshold of peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of peak TRV for PH based on the new (>20 mmHg) and the old (>25 mmHg) cut-off value for mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and to compare it with the mean right ventricular-right atrial (RV-RA) pressure gradient.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with advanced heart failure were screened from 2016 to 2021. The exclusion criteria were absent right heart catheterization (RHC) results, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, any septal defect, inadequate acoustic window or undetectable TR. The mean RV-RA gradient was calculated from the velocity-time integral of TR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study included 41 patients; 34 (82.9%) had mPAP > 20 mmHg and 24 (58.5%) had mPAP > 25 mmHg. The AUC for the prediction of PH with mPAP > 20 mmHg was 0.855 for peak TRV and mean RV-RA gradient was 0.811. AUC for the prediction of PH defined as mPAP > 25 mmHg for peak TRV was 0.860 and for mean RV-RA gradient was 0.830. A cutoff value of 2.4 m/s for peak TRV had 65% sensitivity and 100% positive predictive value for predicting PH according to the new definition.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Peak TRV performed better than mean RV-RA pressure gradient in predicting PH irrespective of hemodynamic definitions. Peak TRV performed similarly with the two definitions of PH, but a lower cutoff value had higher sensitivity and equal positive predictive value for PH.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37627879
pii: diagnostics13162619
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13162619
pmc: PMC10453142
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Apr 1;179(7):615-21
pubmed: 19164700
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Feb 15;197(4):509-516
pubmed: 29099619
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jul 15;263:177-183
pubmed: 29655950
JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Nov 1;4(11):1112-1121
pubmed: 31532457
Chest. 2011 Feb;139(2):347-352
pubmed: 20651021
Eur Respir J. 2019 Jan 24;53(1):
pubmed: 30545968
Eur Respir J. 2009 Oct;34(4):888-94
pubmed: 19324955
Eur Respir Rev. 2015 Dec;24(138):642-52
pubmed: 26621978
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):4058-62
pubmed: 23890907
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2016 Jul 04;12:45-51
pubmed: 28616542
Eur Respir J. 2023 Jan 6;61(1):
pubmed: 36028254
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Oct;9(10):1185-1191
pubmed: 34270923
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019 Jan;32(1):1-64
pubmed: 30282592
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Mar;16(3):233-70
pubmed: 25712077
Chest. 2011 May;139(5):988-993
pubmed: 20864617
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Sep 18;7(18):e009729
pubmed: 30371195
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010 Jul;23(7):685-713; quiz 786-8
pubmed: 20620859
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009 Jul;22(7):814-9
pubmed: 19505794
Eur Respir J. 2012 Feb;39(2):319-28
pubmed: 21885394
Cardiol Rev. 2020 Jan/Feb;28(1):36-41
pubmed: 31804291
Cureus. 2022 Dec 4;14(12):e32185
pubmed: 36620785
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Apr 05;34:100822
pubmed: 33997731
Eur Heart J. 2021 Sep 21;42(36):3599-3726
pubmed: 34447992
JACC Heart Fail. 2017 May;5(5):337-346
pubmed: 28017352
Circulation. 2016 Mar 29;133(13):1240-8
pubmed: 26873944
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Jan 13;23(1):12
pubmed: 35092204