4.1 Article

Right Ventricular Ejection Efficiency: A New Echocardiographic Measure of Mechanical Performance in Chronic Pulmonary Hypertension

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/echo.12419

关键词

echocardiography; M-mode echocardiography; pulmonary hypertension; right ventricular function; strain imaging; tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; tissue Doppler imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe severity of pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is known to be a critical determinant of right ventricular (RV) systolic function; this relationship remains poorly characterized. We therefore, designed a study to examine the relationship that exists between echocardiographically measured PVR and maximal tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) to gain some insight regarding RV ejection efficiency (RVEe) in patients with chronic pulmonary hypertension (cPH). MethodsStandard echocardiographic measures of RV size and systolic performance were recorded from 95 patients (age 5415years and pulmonary artery systolic pressures [PASP] that range from 20 to 125mmHg). For this study, RVEe was defined as TAPSE/Echocardiographic PVR. ResultsA strong negative correlation (R-2=-0.51, P<0.001) was seen between TAPSE and PASP; however, a power curve trend line fit the relationship between RVEe and PASP (R-2=0.77; P<0.01). In a multiple regression analysis, abnormal pulmonary pressures were better identified when RVEe (P<0.0001) was used. ConclusionsBased on these results, it appears that measurement of RVEe might be extremely useful for the assessment of RV mechanics and plasticity. The power curve relationship clearly demonstrates that minimal changes in PASP (up to 50mmHg) result in dramatic reductions in RVEe. A steady decline in RVEe, though at a lower rate, continues to occur with increasing PASP. Additional studies are required using RVEe into a functional RV imaging algorithm and determine if RVEe correlates with development of symptoms, response to therapy and overall clinical outcomes.

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

4.1
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