BACKGROUND: Transthoracic echocardiographic estimates of peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure are conventionally calculated from the maximal velocity of the tricuspid regurgitation (TR) jet. Unfortunately, there is insufficient TR to determine estimated peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure (EPSPAP) in a significant number of patients. To date, in the absence of TR, no noninvasive method of deriving EPSPAP has been developed. METHODS: Five hundred clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiograms were reviewed over a period of 6 months. Patients with pulmonic stenosis were excluded. Pulsed-wave Doppler was used to measure pulmonary artery acceleration time (PAAT) and right ventricular ejection time. Continuous-wave Doppler was used to measure the peak velocity of TR (TR(Vmax)), and EPSPAP was calculated as 4 × TR(Vmax)(2) + 10 mm Hg (to account for right atrial pressure). The relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP was then assessed. RESULTS: Adequate imaging to measure PAAT was available in 99.6% of patients (498 of 500), but 25.3% (126 of 498) had insufficient TR to determine EPSPAP, and 1 patient had significant pulmonic stenosis. Therefore, 371 were included in the final analysis. Interobserver variability for PAAT was 0.97. There were strong inverse correlations between PAAT and TR(Vmax) (r = -0.96), the right atrial/right ventricular pressure gradient (r = -0.95), and EPSPAP (r = -0.95). The regression equation describing the relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP was log(10)(EPSPAP) = -0.004 (PAAT) + 2.1 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: PAAT is routinely obtainable and correlates strongly with both TR(Vmax) and EPSPAP in a large population of randomly selected patients undergoing transthoracic echocardiography. Characterization of the relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP permits PAAT to be used to estimate peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure independent of TR, thereby increasing the percentage of patients in whom transthoracic echocardiography can be used to quantify pulmonary artery pressure.
BACKGROUND: Transthoracic echocardiographic estimates of peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure are conventionally calculated from the maximal velocity of the tricuspid regurgitation (TR) jet. Unfortunately, there is insufficient TR to determine estimated peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure (EPSPAP) in a significant number of patients. To date, in the absence of TR, no noninvasive method of deriving EPSPAP has been developed. METHODS: Five hundred clinically indicated transthoracic echocardiograms were reviewed over a period of 6 months. Patients with pulmonic stenosis were excluded. Pulsed-wave Doppler was used to measure pulmonary artery acceleration time (PAAT) and right ventricular ejection time. Continuous-wave Doppler was used to measure the peak velocity of TR (TR(Vmax)), and EPSPAP was calculated as 4 × TR(Vmax)(2) + 10 mm Hg (to account for right atrial pressure). The relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP was then assessed. RESULTS: Adequate imaging to measure PAAT was available in 99.6% of patients (498 of 500), but 25.3% (126 of 498) had insufficient TR to determine EPSPAP, and 1 patient had significant pulmonic stenosis. Therefore, 371 were included in the final analysis. Interobserver variability for PAAT was 0.97. There were strong inverse correlations between PAAT and TR(Vmax) (r = -0.96), the right atrial/right ventricular pressure gradient (r = -0.95), and EPSPAP (r = -0.95). The regression equation describing the relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP was log(10)(EPSPAP) = -0.004 (PAAT) + 2.1 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: PAAT is routinely obtainable and correlates strongly with both TR(Vmax) and EPSPAP in a large population of randomly selected patients undergoing transthoracic echocardiography. Characterization of the relationship between PAAT and EPSPAP permits PAAT to be used to estimate peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure independent of TR, thereby increasing the percentage of patients in whom transthoracic echocardiography can be used to quantify pulmonary artery pressure.
Authors: Martin Koestenberger; Mark K Friedberg; Eirik Nestaas; Ina Michel-Behnke; Georg Hansmann Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Olga Rafikova; Ruslan Rafikov; Mary Louise Meadows; Archana Kangath; Danny Jonigk; Stephen M Black Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Lorenzo Berra; Riccardo Pinciroli; Christopher P Stowell; Lin Wang; Binglan Yu; Bernadette O Fernandez; Martin Feelisch; Cristina Mietto; Eldad A Hod; Daniel Chipman; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Kenneth D Bloch; Warren M Zapol Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alberto M Marra; Nicola Benjamin; Francesco Ferrara; Olga Vriz; Michele D'Alto; Antonello D'Andrea; Anna Agnese Stanziola; Luna Gargani; Antonio Cittadini; Ekkehard Grünig; Eduardo Bossone Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Philip T Levy; Meghna D Patel; Georgeann Groh; Swati Choudhry; Joshua Murphy; Mark R Holland; Aaron Hamvas; Mark R Grady; Gautam K Singh Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Abigail S Forrest; Talia C Joyce; Marissa L Huebner; Ramon J Ayon; Michael Wiwchar; John Joyce; Natalie Freitas; Alison J Davis; Linda Ye; Dayue D Duan; Cherie A Singer; Maria L Valencik; Iain A Greenwood; Normand Leblanc Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 4.249