BACKGROUND: Given the risk of hemodynamic compromise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients undergoing left heart catheterization (LHC), there is a need for a simple parameter that can predict clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that left ventricular pressure ratio (LVPR), calculated as left ventricle systolic/left ventricle end-diastolic pressure, is a strong predictor of hemodynamic collapse in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive hospitalized HFrEF patients undergoing combined LHC and right heart catheterization (RHC) at a single institution from 2015-2017 was performed. LVPR was compared with standard RHC hemodynamic variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital escalation of therapy, defined as ≥40 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP), SBP ≤90 mm Hg for ≥15 minutes, start or escalation of vasoactive medications, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in-hospital death. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were performed for prediction of the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included in this study. ROC analysis determined an optimal cut-off value of ≤3.96, which correlated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 (sensitivity, 45.9%; specificity, 83.2%; correctly classified, 64.9%). AUC was similar to other variables obtained using RHC. In-hospital survival free of escalation of therapy was lower in the low LVPR group vs the high LVPR group (0% vs 33%, respectively; P<.01). CONCLUSION: LVPR is an easily measured index obtained during LHC that can risk stratify hospitalized patients with HFrEF at the time of LHC.
BACKGROUND: Given the risk of hemodynamic compromise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients undergoing left heart catheterization (LHC), there is a need for a simple parameter that can predict clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that left ventricular pressure ratio (LVPR), calculated as left ventricle systolic/left ventricle end-diastolic pressure, is a strong predictor of hemodynamic collapse in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive hospitalized HFrEF patients undergoing combined LHC and right heart catheterization (RHC) at a single institution from 2015-2017 was performed. LVPR was compared with standard RHC hemodynamic variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital escalation of therapy, defined as ≥40 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure (SBP), SBP ≤90 mm Hg for ≥15 minutes, start or escalation of vasoactive medications, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or in-hospital death. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were performed for prediction of the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were included in this study. ROC analysis determined an optimal cut-off value of ≤3.96, which correlated with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 (sensitivity, 45.9%; specificity, 83.2%; correctly classified, 64.9%). AUC was similar to other variables obtained using RHC. In-hospital survival free of escalation of therapy was lower in the low LVPR group vs the high LVPR group (0% vs 33%, respectively; P<.01). CONCLUSION: LVPR is an easily measured index obtained during LHC that can risk stratify hospitalized patients with HFrEF at the time of LHC.
Authors: Elizabeth M Holper; John Blair; Faith Selzer; Katherine M Detre; Alice K Jacobs; David O Williams; Helen Vlachos; Robert L Wilensky; Paul Coady; David P Faxon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Cynthia Binanay; Robert M Califf; Vic Hasselblad; Christopher M O'Connor; Monica R Shah; George Sopko; Lynne W Stevenson; Gary S Francis; Carl V Leier; Leslie W Miller Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William W O'Neill; Neal S Kleiman; Jeffrey Moses; Jose P S Henriques; Simon Dixon; Joseph Massaro; Igor Palacios; Brijeshwar Maini; Suresh Mulukutla; Vladimír Dzavík; Jeffrey Popma; Pamela S Douglas; Magnus Ohman Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Divaka Perera; Rod Stables; Tim Clayton; Kalpa De Silva; Matthew Lumley; Lucy Clack; Martyn Thomas; Simon Redwood Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dana Bilkova; Zuzana Motovska; Petr Widimsky; Jaroslav Dvorak; Libor Lisa; Tomas Budesinsky Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Alexander R Opotowsky; Edward Hess; Bradley A Maron; Evan L Brittain; Anna E Barón; Thomas M Maddox; Laith I Alshawabkeh; Bradley M Wertheim; Meng Xu; Tufik R Assad; Jonathan D Rich; Gaurav Choudhary; Ryan J Tedford Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Laween Uthman; Antonius Baartscheer; Boris Bleijlevens; Cees A Schumacher; Jan W T Fiolet; Anneke Koeman; Milena Jancev; Markus W Hollmann; Nina C Weber; Ruben Coronel; Coert J Zuurbier Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Mark N Belkin; Sara Kalantari; Anthony J Kanelidis; Tamari Miller; Bryan A Smith; Stephanie A Besser; David Tehrani; Ben B Chung; Ann Nguyen; Nitasha Sarswat; John E A Blair; Daniel Burkhoff; Gabriel Sayer; Sean P Pinney; Nir Uriel; Gene Kim; Jonathan Grinstein Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 6.592