4.5 Article

Apical traction: a novel visual echocardiographic parameter to predict survival in patients with pulmonary hypertension

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jev131

关键词

apical traction; pulmonary hypertension; right ventricular function; speckle-tracking echocardiography; survival

资金

  1. Erasmus Lifelong Learning Programme
  2. Greek Society of Cardiology
  3. Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims In somepulmonary hypertension (PH) patients, we noted a motion pattern where the right ventricular (RV) apex is pulled towards to left ventricle (LV) during systole, caused by traction from the LV ('apical traction', AT). Herein, we characterize patients with AT to investigate its prognostic significance. Methods and results Echocardiograms of 62 pre-capillary PH patients (42 females, age 61 +/- 15 years) were retrospectively analysed. The presence of AT was assessed visually and confirmed by speckle-tracking analysis. Fractional area change (FAC), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV free-wall longitudinal strain (LS) as well as LV function were measured. Aprimary end point of death or heart/lung transplantation was set. AT was observed in 31 patients. They had worse functional capacity, lower TAPSE (1.3 +/- 0.2 vs. 1.9 +/- 0.4, P = 0.001) and FAC (20.3 +/- 6.1 vs. 33 +/- 7.1%, P = 0.001), worse RV free-wall LS (212.4 +/- 3.4 vs. 220.8 +/- 4.9%, P < 0.001), and higher systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (92 +/- 15 vs. 75 +/- 23, P < 0.001). LV function was similar in both groups. The primary end point occurred in 16 patients with and 8 without AT. AT was an independent predictor of the outcome (HR: 14.826, 95% CI: 1.696-129.642, P = 0.015). Conclusion AT occurs in RVs with impaired systolic function in PH patients. It may serve as a new, easily to assess visual parameter to predict the outcome in these patients. Its prognostic importance needs to be validated by prospective studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据