Matteo Toma1,2, Stefano Giovinazzo1, Gabriele Crimi1, Giovanni Masoero1, Manrico Balbi1,2, Fabrizio Montecucco2,3, Marco Canepa1,2, Italo Porto1,2, Pietro Ameri1,2. 1. Cardiovascular Disease Unit, Istituto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, IRCCS Italian Cardiology Network, Genova, Italy. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. 3. First Clinic of Internal Medicine, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, IRCCS Italian Cardiology Network, Genova, Italy.
Abstract
Background: Right atrial pressure (RAP) can be estimated by echocardiography from inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility (eRAPIVC), tricuspid E/e' ratio ( eRAP E / e ' ), or hepatic vein flow (eRAPHV). The mean of these estimates (eRAPmean) might be more accurate than single assessments. Methods and Results: eRAPIVC, eRAP E / e ' , eRAPHV (categorized in 5, 10, 15, or 20 mmHg), eRAPmean (continuous values) and invasive RAP (iRAP) were obtained in 43 consecutive patients undergoing right heart catheterization [median age 69 (58-75) years, 49% males]. There was a positive correlation between eRAPmean and iRAP (Spearman test r = 0.66, P < 0.001), with Bland-Altman test showing the best agreement for values <10 mmHg. There was also a trend for decreased concordance between eRAPIVC, eRAP E / e ' , eRAPHV, and iRAP across the 5- to 20-mmHg categories, and iRAP was significantly different from eRAP E / e ' and eRAPHV for the 20-mmHg category (Wilcoxon signed-rank test P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The areas under the curve in predicting iRAP were nonsignificantly better for eRAPmean than for eRAPIVC at both 5-mmHg [0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.80 vs. 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.87; Wald test P = 0.41] and 10-mmHg (0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.92 vs. 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96; P = 0.43) thresholds. Conclusions: Our data suggest that multiparametric eRAPmean does not provide advantage over eRAPIVC, despite being more complex and time-consuming.
Background: Right atrial pressure (RAP) can be estimated by echocardiography from inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility (eRAPIVC), tricuspid E/e' ratio ( eRAP E / e ' ), or hepatic vein flow (eRAPHV). The mean of these estimates (eRAPmean) might be more accurate than single assessments. Methods and Results: eRAPIVC, eRAP E / e ' , eRAPHV (categorized in 5, 10, 15, or 20 mmHg), eRAPmean (continuous values) and invasive RAP (iRAP) were obtained in 43 consecutive patients undergoing right heart catheterization [median age 69 (58-75) years, 49% males]. There was a positive correlation between eRAPmean and iRAP (Spearman test r = 0.66, P < 0.001), with Bland-Altman test showing the best agreement for values <10 mmHg. There was also a trend for decreased concordance between eRAPIVC, eRAP E / e ' , eRAPHV, and iRAP across the 5- to 20-mmHg categories, and iRAP was significantly different from eRAP E / e ' and eRAPHV for the 20-mmHg category (Wilcoxon signed-rank test P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The areas under the curve in predicting iRAP were nonsignificantly better for eRAPmean than for eRAPIVC at both 5-mmHg [0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.80 vs. 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.87; Wald test P = 0.41] and 10-mmHg (0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.92 vs. 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96; P = 0.43) thresholds. Conclusions: Our data suggest that multiparametric eRAPmean does not provide advantage over eRAPIVC, despite being more complex and time-consuming.