BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), elevated jugular venous pressure (JVP) is the most reliable sign of elevated left-sided filling pressures. However, discordance between right- and left-sided filling pressures (R-L mismatch) could lead to inadequate or excessive therapy guided by JVP. We determined the prevalence of R-L mismatch in the current era and investigated whether mismatch might be identified from clinical information. METHODS AND RESULTS: Right-sided heart catheterization was performed in 537 consecutive patients hospitalized with advanced HF during complete transplantation evaluation. Patients with high filling pressures were categorized as matched (right atrial pressure (RAP) ≥10 mm Hg and pulmonary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥22 mm Hg), high-R mismatch (RAP ≥10 but PCWP <22 mm Hg) or high-L mismatch (PCWP ≥22 but RAP <10 mm Hg). Among all of the patients, 195 (36%) were matched low and 194 (36%) were matched high, and 148 (28%) had R-L mismatch. Among patients with high filling pressures, 194 (57%) were matched high and 82 (24%) had high-L and 66 (19%) high-R mismatch. Mismatches were not associated with differences in demographic or clinical data, including pulmonary and hepatic function, or severity of valvular regurgitation and right ventricular function by echo. However, among all patients with RAP ≥10 mm Hg, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was higher in those patients with matched high left- and right-sided pressures (59 ± 12 mm Hg) versus high-R mismatch (41 ± 13 mm Hg; P < .0001). Similarly among all patients with low RAP, PASP was lower in patients with matched low right- and left-side pressures (33 ± 11 mm Hg) versus high-L mismatch (53 ± 13 mm Hg; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: R-L mismatch was present in >1 in 4 total patients, and >1 in 3 with elevated filling pressures. Regardless of clinical history, when empiric therapy to optimize volume status to JVP is not effective, additional measurement should be considered to establish the R-L relationship.
BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced heart failure (HF), elevated jugular venous pressure (JVP) is the most reliable sign of elevated left-sided filling pressures. However, discordance between right- and left-sided filling pressures (R-L mismatch) could lead to inadequate or excessive therapy guided by JVP. We determined the prevalence of R-L mismatch in the current era and investigated whether mismatch might be identified from clinical information. METHODS AND RESULTS: Right-sided heart catheterization was performed in 537 consecutive patients hospitalized with advanced HF during complete transplantation evaluation. Patients with high filling pressures were categorized as matched (right atrial pressure (RAP) ≥10 mm Hg and pulmonary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥22 mm Hg), high-R mismatch (RAP ≥10 but PCWP <22 mm Hg) or high-L mismatch (PCWP ≥22 but RAP <10 mm Hg). Among all of the patients, 195 (36%) were matched low and 194 (36%) were matched high, and 148 (28%) had R-L mismatch. Among patients with high filling pressures, 194 (57%) were matched high and 82 (24%) had high-L and 66 (19%) high-R mismatch. Mismatches were not associated with differences in demographic or clinical data, including pulmonary and hepatic function, or severity of valvular regurgitation and right ventricular function by echo. However, among all patients with RAP ≥10 mm Hg, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was higher in those patients with matched high left- and right-sided pressures (59 ± 12 mm Hg) versus high-R mismatch (41 ± 13 mm Hg; P < .0001). Similarly among all patients with low RAP, PASP was lower in patients with matched low right- and left-side pressures (33 ± 11 mm Hg) versus high-L mismatch (53 ± 13 mm Hg; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: R-L mismatch was present in >1 in 4 total patients, and >1 in 3 with elevated filling pressures. Regardless of clinical history, when empiric therapy to optimize volume status to JVP is not effective, additional measurement should be considered to establish the R-L relationship.
Authors: Justin L Grodin; Mark H Drazner; Matthias Dupont; Wilfried Mullens; David O Taylor; Randall C Starling; W H Wilson Tang Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Guillaume Baudry; Juliette Bourdin; Raluca Mocan; Elisabeth Hugon-Vallet; Matteo Pozzi; Antoine Jobbé-Duval; Nicolas Paulo; Patrick Rossignol; Laurent Sebbag; Nicolas Girerd Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Attilio Restivo; Domenico D'Amario; Donato Antonio Paglianiti; Renzo Laborante; Giuseppe Princi; Luigi Cappannoli; Antonio Iaconelli; Mattia Galli; Nadia Aspromonte; Gabriella Locorotondo; Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Filippo Crea Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-13
Authors: Gaspare Parrinello; Stephen J Greene; Daniele Torres; Michael Alderman; Joseph Vincent Bonventre; Pietro Di Pasquale; Luna Gargani; Anju Nohria; Gregg C Fonarow; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Javed Butler; Salvatore Paterna; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: David D Pham; Mark H Drazner; Colby R Ayers; Justin L Grodin; Elizabeth A Hardin; Sonia Garg; Pradeep P A Mammen; Alpesh Amin; Faris G Araj; Robert M Morlend; Jennifer T Thibodeau Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Alexander Jobs; Reinhard Vonthein; Inke R König; Jane Schäfer; Matthias Nauck; Svenja Haag; Carlo Federico Fichera; Thomas Stiermaier; Jakob Ledwoch; Alisa Schneider; Miroslava Valentova; Stephan von Haehling; Stefan Störk; Dirk Westermann; Tobias Lenz; Natalie Arnold; Frank Edelmann; Philipp Seppelt; Stephan Felix; Matthias Lutz; Felix Hedwig; Martin Borggrefe; Clemens Scherer; Steffen Desch; Holger Thiele Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-01-28