OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to explore further the relationship between Doppler-derived parameters of pulmonary flow and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and to determine whether PVR could be accurately estimated noninvasively from Doppler flow velocity measurements in patients with chronic heart failure. BACKGROUND: The assessment of PVR is of great importance in the management of patients with heart failure. However, because of the inconclusive and conflicting data available, Doppler estimation of PVR is still considered unreliable. METHODS: Simultaneous Doppler echocardiographic examination and right heart catheterization were performed in 63 consecutive sinus rhythm heart failure patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Hemodynamic PVR was calculated with the standard formula. The following Doppler variables on pulmonary flow and tricuspid regurgitation velocity curve were correlated with PVR: maximal systolic flow velocity, pre-ejection period (PEP), acceleration time (AcT), ejection time, total systolic time (TT), velocity time integral, and right atrium-ventricular gradient. RESULTS: At univariate analysis, all variables except maximal systolic flow velocity and velocity time integral showed a significant, although weak, correlation with PVR. The best correlation found was between AcT and PVR (r = -0.68). By regression analysis, only PEP, AcT and TT entered into the final equation, with a cumulative r = 0.87. When the function (PEP/AcT)/TT was correlated with PVR, the correlation coefficient further improved to 0.96. Of note, this function prospectively predicted PVR (r = 0.94) after effective unloading manipulations. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of Doppler-derived pulmonary systolic flow is a reliable and accurate tool for estimating and monitoring PVR in patients with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to explore further the relationship between Doppler-derived parameters of pulmonary flow and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and to determine whether PVR could be accurately estimated noninvasively from Doppler flow velocity measurements in patients with chronic heart failure. BACKGROUND: The assessment of PVR is of great importance in the management of patients with heart failure. However, because of the inconclusive and conflicting data available, Doppler estimation of PVR is still considered unreliable. METHODS: Simultaneous Doppler echocardiographic examination and right heart catheterization were performed in 63 consecutive sinus rhythm heart failurepatients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Hemodynamic PVR was calculated with the standard formula. The following Doppler variables on pulmonary flow and tricuspid regurgitation velocity curve were correlated with PVR: maximal systolic flow velocity, pre-ejection period (PEP), acceleration time (AcT), ejection time, total systolic time (TT), velocity time integral, and right atrium-ventricular gradient. RESULTS: At univariate analysis, all variables except maximal systolic flow velocity and velocity time integral showed a significant, although weak, correlation with PVR. The best correlation found was between AcT and PVR (r = -0.68). By regression analysis, only PEP, AcT and TT entered into the final equation, with a cumulative r = 0.87. When the function (PEP/AcT)/TT was correlated with PVR, the correlation coefficient further improved to 0.96. Of note, this function prospectively predicted PVR (r = 0.94) after effective unloading manipulations. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of Doppler-derived pulmonary systolic flow is a reliable and accurate tool for estimating and monitoring PVR in patients with chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Authors: Peter C Frommelt; Eric Gerstenberger; Jeanne Baffa; William L Border; Tim J Bradley; Steven Colan; Jessica Gorentz; Haleh Heydarian; J Blaine John; Wyman W Lai; Jami Levine; Jimmy C Lu; Rachel T McCandless; Stephen Miller; Arni Nutting; Richard G Ohye; Gail D Pearson; Pierre C Wong; Meryl S Cohen Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Vitaly O Kheyfets; Michal Schafer; Chris A Podgorski; Joyce D Schroeder; James Browning; Jean Hertzberg; J Kern Buckner; Kendal S Hunter; Robin Shandas; Brett E Fenster Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Juha W Koskenvuo; Rachel Mirsky; Yan Zhang; Franca S Angeli; Sarah Jahn; Tero-Pekka Alastalo; Nelson B Schiller; Andrew J Boyle; Kanu Chatterjee; Teresa De Marco; Yerem Yeghiazarians Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Sheeraz Habash; Kai Thorsten Laser; Julia Moosmann; Roland Reif; Werner Adler; Martin Glöckler; Deniz Kececioglu; Sven Dittrich Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Alexander R Opotowsky; Mathieu Clair; Jonathan Afilalo; Michael J Landzberg; Aaron B Waxman; Lilamarie Moko; Bradley A Maron; Anjali Vaidya; Paul R Forfia Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Andreas P Kalogeropoulos; Vasiliki V Georgiopoulou; Barry A Borlaug; Mihai Gheorghiade; Javed Butler Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 8.790