1. Echocardiographic assessment of raised pulmonary vascular resistance: application to diagnosis and follow-up of pulmonary hypertension
- Author
-
David L. Prior, Christine Jellis, Sudhir Wahi, Arun Dahiya, William Vollbon, and Thomas H. Marwick
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Cardiac output ,Hypertension, Pulmonary ,Doppler echocardiography ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Ventricular Function, Left ,Internal medicine ,medicine.artery ,medicine ,Humans ,Ventricular outflow tract ,Aged ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Central venous pressure ,Stroke Volume ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Pulmonary hypertension ,eye diseases ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Early Diagnosis ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Echocardiography ,Pulmonary artery ,Cardiology ,Vascular resistance ,Ventricular pressure ,Female ,Vascular Resistance ,sense organs ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Blood Flow Velocity - Abstract
Objective To optimise an echocardiographic estimation of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR e ) for diagnosis and follow-up of pulmonary hypertension (PHT). Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Tertiary referral centre. Patients Patients undergoing right heart catheterisation and echocardiography for assessment of suspected PHT. Methods PVR e ([tricuspid regurgitation velocity ×10/(right ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral+0.16) and invasive PVR i ((mean pulmonary artery systolic pressure-wedge pressure)/cardiac output) were compared in 72 patients. Other echo data included right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP), estimated right atrial pressure, and E/e9 ratio. Difference between PVR e and PVR i at various levels of PVR was sought using Bland–Altman analysis. Corrected PVR c ((RVSP−E/e9)/RVOT VTI ) (RVOT, RV outflow time; VTI, velocity time integral) was developed in the training group and tested in a separate validation group of 42 patients with established PHT. Results PVR e >2.0 had high sensitivity (93%) and specificity (91%) for recognition of PVR i >2.0, and PVR c provided similar sensitivities and specificities. PVR e and PVR i correlated well (r=0.77, p e underestimated marked elevation of PVR i —a trend avoided by PVR c . PVR c and PVR e were tested against PVR i in a separate validation group (n=42). The mean difference between PVR e and PVR i exceeded that between PVR c and PVR i (2.8±2.7 vs 0.8±3.0 Wood units; p i by at least one SD occurred in 10 patients over 6 months; this was detected in one patient by PVR e and eight patients by PVR c (p=0.002). Conclusion PVR e distinguishes normal from abnormal PVR i but underestimates high PVR i . PVR c identifies the severity of PHT and may be used to assess treatment response.
- Published
- 2010
- Full Text
- View/download PDF