4.6 Review

Prognostic value of the right ventricular ejection fraction using three-dimensional echocardiography: Systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287924

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognostic value of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) assessed by three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) was examined and compared to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS). RVEF was found to have a higher predictive power than LVEF in certain populations and was similar to LVGLS in terms of prognostic value. Individual patient data analysis confirmed these findings.
AimsThree-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is a robust method for measuring the right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF), which is closely associated with outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (1) to examine the prognostic value of RVEF and (2) to compare its prognostic value with that of left ventricular (LV) EF and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS). We also performed individual patient data analysis to validate the results. Methods and resultsWe searched articles reporting the prognostic value of RVEF. Hazard ratios (HR) were re-scaled using the within-study standard deviation (SD). To compare predictive values of RVEF and LVEF or LVGLS, the ratio of HR related to a 1-SD reduction of RVEF versus LVEF or LVGLS was calculated. Pooled HR of RVEF and pooled ratio of HR were analyzed in a random-effects model. Fifteen articles with 3,228 subjects were included. Pooled HR of a 1-SD reduction of RVEF was 2.54 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-3.00). In subgroup analysis, RVEF was significantly associated with outcome in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) (HR: 2.79, 95% CI: 2.04-3.82) and cardiovascular (CV) diseases (HR: 2.23, 95%CI: 1.76-2.83). In studies reporting HRs for both RVEF and LVEF or RVEF and LVGLS in the same cohort, RVEF had 1.8-fold greater prognostic power per 1-SD reduction than LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.20-2.71), but had predictive value similar to that of LVGLS (ratio of HR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.91-1.31) and to LVEF in patients with reduced LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.34, 95%CI: 0.94-1.91). In individual patient data analysis (n = 1,142), RVEF < 45% was significantly associated with worse CV outcome (HR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.66-6.70), even in patients with reduced or preserved LVEF. ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis highlight and support the use of RVEF assessed by 3DE to predict CV outcomes in routine clinical practice in patients with CV diseases and in those with PAH.

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

4.6
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