BACKGROUND: There are concerns whether there is a difference in clinical utility of pulmonary regurgitation (PR) fraction (PRF) and PR volume (PRV) in subgroups of patients with isolated PR and individuals with combined PR and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO). The aim of the study was to compare PRF and PRV in patients with or without RVOTO. METHODS AND RESULTS: 82 consecutive patients after repair of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) who underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography were studied. There was no difference in PRF between patients with moderate and severe right ventricular (RV) dilatation (32±13% vs. 37±12%; p=0.18). Significant difference in PRV was observed between these groups (23±10 ml/m2 vs. 31±12 ml/m2, respectively; p=0.02). PRV had better ability than PRF in identification of severe RV dilatation, both in group with RVOTO [area under the curve (AUC) 0.82 vs. 0.72, p=0.005] and in patients without RVOTO (AUC 0.83 vs. 0.77, p=0.04). A strong correlation was seen between PRF and PRV both in patients with and without RVOTO [r=0.93, p<0.0001 and r=0.92, p<0.0001, respectively]. In both subgroups high variability of PRF was found in subjects with similar degree of PRV. CONCLUSIONS: PRV shows better ability than PRF in evaluating influence of PR on RV in patients after TOF repair, both in population with and without concomitant RVOTO.
BACKGROUND: There are concerns whether there is a difference in clinical utility of pulmonary regurgitation (PR) fraction (PRF) and PR volume (PRV) in subgroups of patients with isolated PR and individuals with combined PR and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO). The aim of the study was to compare PRF and PRV in patients with or without RVOTO. METHODS AND RESULTS: 82 consecutive patients after repair of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) who underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance and echocardiography were studied. There was no difference in PRF between patients with moderate and severe right ventricular (RV) dilatation (32±13% vs. 37±12%; p=0.18). Significant difference in PRV was observed between these groups (23±10 ml/m2 vs. 31±12 ml/m2, respectively; p=0.02). PRV had better ability than PRF in identification of severe RV dilatation, both in group with RVOTO [area under the curve (AUC) 0.82 vs. 0.72, p=0.005] and in patients without RVOTO (AUC 0.83 vs. 0.77, p=0.04). A strong correlation was seen between PRF and PRV both in patients with and without RVOTO [r=0.93, p<0.0001 and r=0.92, p<0.0001, respectively]. In both subgroups high variability of PRF was found in subjects with similar degree of PRV. CONCLUSIONS: PRV shows better ability than PRF in evaluating influence of PR on RV in patients after TOF repair, both in population with and without concomitant RVOTO.
Authors: Thomas M Gorter; Joost P van Melle; Hendrik G Freling; Tjark Ebels; Beatrijs Bartelds; Petronella G Pieper; Rolf M F Berger; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Tineke P Willems Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Mateusz Śpiewak; Joanna Petryka-Mazurkiewicz; Łukasz Mazurkiewicz; Barbara Miłosz-Wieczorek; Mirosław Kowalski; Elżbieta K Biernacka; Piotr Hoffman; Magdalena Marczak Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2020-11-03