4.5 Article

Early echocardiographic pulmonary artery measurements as prognostic indicators in left congenital diaphragmatic hernia

期刊

BMC PEDIATRICS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04308-3

关键词

Hernia; Diaphragmatic; Mortality; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Echocardiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The LPA:MPA ratio measured by echocardiography can be used as an independent postnatal predictor of death or need for ECMO in patients with left CDH.
Background To predict whether the left pulmonary artery (LPA) to the main pulmonary artery (MPA) ratio measured by echocardiography in left congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) was related to death or need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods This retrospective study analyzed neonates with left CDH born between 2018 and 2022 in a single tertiary medical institution. Echocardiography was performed immediately after birth. The diameter of the LPA was measured at the bifurcation, and the diameter of the MPA was measured at the maximal dimension during the systolic phase. The Nakata index, McGoon ratio, and ejection fraction (EF) were analyzed and compared with the LPA: MPA ratio as predictive values. Results Seventy-two neonates with left CDH were included, 19 (26.4%) died or needed ECMO, and 53 (73.6%) survived without ECMO. The lower observed/expected lung-to-head ratio, lower EF, lower LPA: MPA ratio, lower RPA: MPA ratio, lower Nakata index, and lower McGoon ratio were associated with death or need for ECMO. By multivariate analysis, lower LPA: MPA ratio, RPA: MPA ratio, and Nakata index were independent postnatal risk factors for death or need for ECMO. Among the measurements, the LPA: MPA ratio had the highest area under the curve (0.957) with a sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 96.3% at a cut-off value of 31.2%. Conclusion In patients with left CDH, the LPA: MPA ratio measured by echocardiography could be used as an independent postnatal predictor of death or need for ECMO.

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