BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluated an alternative echocardiographic method to calculate mean pulmonary arterial pressure (MPAP). METHODS: One hundred two patients were studied with simultaneous right-heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography. MPAP was calculated by adding the right ventricular-right atrial mean systolic gradient to right atrial pressure. RESULTS: The mean difference between MPAP calculated using this method and RHC-derived MPAP was -1.6 mm Hg, less than that of traditional systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP; -6.4 mm Hg) and MPAP estimated using the pulmonary regurgitation method (-13.9 mm Hg). The median absolute percentage difference of the MPAP calculations relative to RHC was significantly less with this method than with the pulmonary regurgitation method (18% vs 71%; P < .001) and similar to the SPAP method (both 18%; P = .30). CONCLUSION: MPAP calculated using the proposed method is as accurate as SPAP calculation and less variable than previous methods, thus allowing widespread clinical use.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluated an alternative echocardiographic method to calculate mean pulmonary arterial pressure (MPAP). METHODS: One hundred two patients were studied with simultaneous right-heart catheterization (RHC) and echocardiography. MPAP was calculated by adding the right ventricular-right atrial mean systolic gradient to right atrial pressure. RESULTS: The mean difference between MPAP calculated using this method and RHC-derived MPAP was -1.6 mm Hg, less than that of traditional systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP; -6.4 mm Hg) and MPAP estimated using the pulmonary regurgitation method (-13.9 mm Hg). The median absolute percentage difference of the MPAP calculations relative to RHC was significantly less with this method than with the pulmonary regurgitation method (18% vs 71%; P < .001) and similar to the SPAP method (both 18%; P = .30). CONCLUSION:MPAP calculated using the proposed method is as accurate as SPAP calculation and less variable than previous methods, thus allowing widespread clinical use.
Authors: Michelle L Freeman; Carolyn Landolfo; Robert E Safford; Cesar A Keller; Michael G Heckman; Charles D Burger Journal: South Med J Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Kotaro Nochioka; Gabriela Querejeta Roca; Brian Claggett; Tor Biering-Sørensen; Kunihiro Matsushita; Chung-Lieh Hung; Scott D Solomon; Dalane Kitzman; Amil M Shah Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Fikret Er; Stefan Ederer; Amir M Nia; Evren Caglayan; Kristina M Dahlem; Nasser Semmo; Natig Gassanov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sathish Parasuraman; Seamus Walker; Brodie L Loudon; Nicholas D Gollop; Andrew M Wilson; Crystal Lowery; Michael P Frenneaux Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2016-07-04