4.7 Article

A simple method for noninvasive estimation of pulmonary vascular resistance

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 1021-1027

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02973-X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We sought to test whether the ratio of peak tricuspid regurgritant velocity (TRV, ms) to the right ventricular outflow tract time-velocity integral (TVIRVOT, cm) obtained by Doppler echocardiography (TRV/TVIRVOT) provides a clinically reliable method to determine pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). BACKGROUND Pulmonary vascular resistance is an important hemodynamic variable used in the management of patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. Right-heart catheterization, with its associated disadvantages, is required to determine PVR. However, a reliable noninvasive method is unavailable. METHODS Simultaneous Doppler echocardiographic examination and right-heart catheterization were performed in 44 patients. The ratio of TRV/TVIRVOT wasthen correlated with invasive PVR measurements using regression analysis. An equation was modeled to calculate PVR in Wood units (WU) using echocardiography, and the results were compared with invasive PVR measurements using the Bland-Altman analysis. Using receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis, a cutof value for the Doppler equation was generated to determine PVR >2WU. RESULTS As calculated by Doppler echocardiography, TRV/TVIRVOT correlated well (r = 0.929, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.96) with invasive PVR measurements. The Bland-Altman analysis between PVR obtained invasively and that by echocardiography, using the equation: PVR = TRV/TVIRVOT X 10 + 0.16, showed satisfactory limits of agreement (mean 0 +/- 0.41). A TRV/TVIRVOT cutof value of 0.175 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 81% to determine PVR >2WU. CONCLUSIONS Doppler echocardiography may provide a reliable, noninvasive method to determine PVR. (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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

4.7
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