Rebecca R Vanderpool1, Michael R Pinsky2, Robert Naeije3, Christopher Deible4, Vijaya Kosaraju5, Cheryl Bunner6, Michael A Mathier6, Joan Lacomis4, Hunter C Champion7, Marc A Simon8. 1. Vascular Medicine Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Heart & Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 6. Heart & Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 7. Vascular Medicine Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Heart & Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Vascular Medicine Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Heart & Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prognosis in pulmonary hypertension (PH) is largely determined by RV function. However, uncertainty remains about what metrics of RV function might be most clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical relevance of metrics of RV functional adaptation to increased afterload. METHODS: Patients referred for PH underwent right heart catheterisation and RV volumetric assessment within 48 h. A RV maximum pressure (Pmax) was calculated from the RV pressure curve. The adequacy of RV systolic functional adaptation to increased afterload was estimated either by a stroke volume (SV)/end-systolic volume (ESV) ratio, a Pmax/mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ratio, or by EF (RVEF). Diastolic function of the RV was estimated by a diastolic elastance coefficient β. Survival analysis was via Cox proportional HR, and Kaplan-Meier with the primary outcome of time to death or lung transplant. RESULTS: Patients (n=50; age 58±13 yrs) covered a range of mPAP (13-79 mm Hg) with an average RVEF of 39±17% and ESV of 143±89 mL. Average estimates of the ratio of end-systolic ventricular to arterial elastance were 0.79±0.67 (SV/ESV) and 2.3±0.65 (Pmax/mPAP-1). Transplantation-free survival was predicted by right atrial pressure, mPAP, pulmonary vascular resistance, β, SV, ESV, SV/ESV and RVEF, but after controlling for right atrial pressure, mPAP, and SV, SV/ESV was the only independent predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The adequacy of RV functional adaptation to afterload predicts survival in patients referred for PH. Whether this can simply be evaluated using RV volumetric imaging will require additional confirmation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: Prognosis in pulmonary hypertension (PH) is largely determined by RV function. However, uncertainty remains about what metrics of RV function might be most clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical relevance of metrics of RV functional adaptation to increased afterload. METHODS:Patients referred for PH underwent right heart catheterisation and RV volumetric assessment within 48 h. A RV maximum pressure (Pmax) was calculated from the RV pressure curve. The adequacy of RV systolic functional adaptation to increased afterload was estimated either by a stroke volume (SV)/end-systolic volume (ESV) ratio, a Pmax/mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ratio, or by EF (RVEF). Diastolic function of the RV was estimated by a diastolic elastance coefficient β. Survival analysis was via Cox proportional HR, and Kaplan-Meier with the primary outcome of time to death or lung transplant. RESULTS:Patients (n=50; age 58±13 yrs) covered a range of mPAP (13-79 mm Hg) with an average RVEF of 39±17% and ESV of 143±89 mL. Average estimates of the ratio of end-systolic ventricular to arterial elastance were 0.79±0.67 (SV/ESV) and 2.3±0.65 (Pmax/mPAP-1). Transplantation-free survival was predicted by right atrial pressure, mPAP, pulmonary vascular resistance, β, SV, ESV, SV/ESV and RVEF, but after controlling for right atrial pressure, mPAP, and SV, SV/ESV was the only independent predictor. CONCLUSIONS: The adequacy of RV functional adaptation to afterload predicts survival in patients referred for PH. Whether this can simply be evaluated using RV volumetric imaging will require additional confirmation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Pia Trip; Taco Kind; Marielle C van de Veerdonk; Johannes T Marcus; Frances S de Man; Nico Westerhof; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Marc A Simon; Christopher Deible; Michael A Mathier; Joan Lacomis; Orly Goitein; Sanjeev G Shroff; Michael R Pinsky Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Mariëlle C van de Veerdonk; Taco Kind; J Tim Marcus; Gert-Jan Mauritz; Martijn W Heymans; Harm-Jan Bogaard; Anco Boonstra; Koen M J Marques; Nico Westerhof; Anton Vonk-Noordegraaf Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ryan J Tedford; James O Mudd; Reda E Girgis; Stephen C Mathai; Ari L Zaiman; Traci Housten-Harris; Danielle Boyce; Benjamin W Kelemen; Anita C Bacher; Ami A Shah; Laura K Hummers; Fredrick M Wigley; Stuart D Russell; Rajeev Saggar; Rajan Saggar; W Lowell Maughan; Paul M Hassoun; David A Kass Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Christopher M Kramer; Jorg Barkhausen; Scott D Flamm; Raymond J Kim; Eike Nagel Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Michal Schäfer; Cynthia Myers; R Dale Brown; Maria G Frid; Wei Tan; Kendall Hunter; Kurt R Stenmark Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.369
Authors: Martin Koestenberger; Mark K Friedberg; Eirik Nestaas; Ina Michel-Behnke; Georg Hansmann Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Steven Hsu; Brian A Houston; Emmanouil Tampakakis; Anita C Bacher; Parker S Rhodes; Stephen C Mathai; Rachel L Damico; Todd M Kolb; Laura K Hummers; Ami A Shah; Zsuzsanna McMahan; Celia P Corona-Villalobos; Stefan L Zimmerman; Fredrick M Wigley; Paul M Hassoun; David A Kass; Ryan J Tedford Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yin Yin Chen; Hong Yun; Hang Jin; De Hong Kong; Yu Liang Long; Cai Xia Fu; Shan Yang; Meng Su Zeng Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Richard M Friesen; Michal Schäfer; D Dunbar Ivy; Steven H Abman; Kurt Stenmark; Lorna P Browne; Alex J Barker; Kendall S Hunter; Uyen Truong Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jordan C Ray; Charles Burger; Patricia Mergo; Robert Safford; Joseph Blackshear; Christopher Austin; DeLisa Fairweather; Michael G Heckman; Tonya Zeiger; Marcia Dubin; Brian Shapiro Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Alessandro Bellofiore; Eric Dinges; Robert Naeije; Hamorabi Mkrdichian; Lauren Beussink-Nelson; Melissa Bailey; Michael J Cuttica; Ranya Sweis; James R Runo; Jon G Keevil; Christopher J Francois; Sanjiv J Shah; Naomi C Chesler Journal: Heart Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 5.994