4.5 Article

Right ventricular systolic pressure by echocardiography as a predictor of pulmonary hypertension in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 102, 期 9, 页码 1305-1310

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.03.022

关键词

hypertension; pulmonary; oximetry; pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary function tests; pressure; pulmonary artery

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL080206, U10 HL080411-04, U10 HL080411] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) commonly complicates the course of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). It has a significant impact on outcomes and is, therefore, important to detect. Objectives: We sought to characterize the accuracy and performance characteristics of the right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) as estimated by echocardiography (ECHO) alone and in conjunction with physiologic indices in predicting the presence of PH in IPF patients. Methods: Cross-sectional study of IPF patients from two large tertiary centers in whom both ECHO and right-heart catheterization (RHC) were available. Measurements and main results: There were 110 patients with available ECHOs and RHCs. Estimates of RVSP were reported in 60 of these patients (54.5%) of whom 22 (36.6%) had PH, while 16 of the 50 patients without RVSP estimate (32%) had PH. Twenty-four of 60 (40%) ECHOs accurately reflected the pulmonary arterial systolic pressure as measured by RHC. An optimal RVSP threshold for the screening of PH could not be detected. When assessed in combination with various thresholds of PFT and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) parameters, the performance characteristics of the RVSP were slightly improved. Conclusion: The RVSP is not an accurate test for the assessment of PH in IPF patients. Awareness of the various combinations of threshold values for RVSP with and without PFT and 6MWT might nonetheless assist clinicians in risk stratifying IPF patients for the presence of PH. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据