Suppr超能文献

肺动脉搏动指数能否区分慢性肺血栓栓塞症与肺动脉高压?一项超声心动图和心导管检查研究。

Are pulmonary artery pulsatility indexes able to differentiate chronic pulmonary thromboembolism from pulmonary arterial hypertension? An echocardiographic and catheterization study.

作者信息

Palecek Tomas, Jansa Pavel, Ambroz David, Hlubocka Zuzana, Horak Jan, Skvarilova Marcela, Aschermann Michael, Linhart Ales

机构信息

2nd Medical Department, Clinical Department of Cardiology and Angiology, General University Hospital, 1st Medical Faculty, Charles University of Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 128-08, Prague 2, Czech Republic.

出版信息

Heart Vessels. 2011 Mar;26(2):176-82. doi: 10.1007/s00380-010-0044-x. Epub 2010 Oct 16.

Abstract

The differentiation between chronic pulmonary thromboembolic hypertension (CTEPH) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains a clinical challenge. The aim of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of both echocardiographically and invasively derived pulmonary artery pulsatility indexes in the etiologic differentiation of patients with CTEPH and PAH. We retrospectively analyzed the results of echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic examinations in 125 patients with either CTEPH (n = 62) or PAH (n = 63). Invasive data were obtained in 52 patients with CTEPH and 43 PAH patients. Using echocardiography, pulmonary artery systolic (PASP), diastolic (PADP) and mean (PAMP) pressures were estimated from velocities of tricuspid regurgitation and pulmonary regurgitation, respectively. Pulse pressure (PP) was calculated as the difference between PASP and PADP. To obtain pulmonary artery pulsatility indexes, we normalized PP by PASP (PP/PASP), by PAMP (PP/PAMP) and by PADP (PP/PADP). Pulsatility indexes assessed by echocardiography did not differ between CTEPH and PAH patients except for PP/PAMP [PP/PAMP (1.82 ± 0.33 vs. 1.40 ± 0.3, p < 0.001)]. Invasively derived pulsatility indexes were significantly higher in subjects with CTEPH (0.60 ± 0.08 vs. 0.53 ± 0.09 for PP/PASP; 0.98 ± 0.21 vs. 0.81 ± 0.21 for PP/PAMP; 1.58 ± 0.52 vs. 1.21 ± 0.41 for PP/PADP; all p < 0.001). The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves analysis showed that no cutoff value allowed discriminating between CTEPH and PAH by using echocardiographically or invasively derived pulsatility indices. Invasively derived pulmonary artery pulsatility indexes as well as echocardiographically determined PP/PAMP indexes are higher in CTEPH compared to PAH. However, due to the important overlap no optimal threshold values of these parameters can be given to allow satisfactory discrimination of the two diseases in clinical practice.

摘要

慢性血栓栓塞性肺动脉高压(CTEPH)与肺动脉高压(PAH)的鉴别诊断仍是一项临床挑战。我们研究的目的是评估超声心动图和有创测量所得的肺动脉搏动指数在CTEPH和PAH患者病因鉴别中的作用。我们回顾性分析了125例CTEPH患者(n = 62)或PAH患者(n = 63)的超声心动图和有创血流动力学检查结果。52例CTEPH患者和43例PAH患者获得了有创数据。通过超声心动图,分别根据三尖瓣反流和肺动脉反流速度估算肺动脉收缩压(PASP)、舒张压(PADP)和平均压(PAMP)。脉压(PP)计算为PASP与PADP之差。为获得肺动脉搏动指数,我们用PASP(PP/PASP)、PAMP(PP/PAMP)和PADP(PP/PADP)对PP进行标准化。除PP/PAMP外,CTEPH和PAH患者经超声心动图评估的搏动指数无差异[PP/PAMP(1.82±0.33对1.40±0.3,p<0.001)]。CTEPH患者有创测量所得的搏动指数显著更高(PP/PASP为0.60±0.08对0.53±0.09;PP/PAMP为0.98±0.21对0.81±0.21;PP/PADP为1.58±0.52对1.21±0.41;均p<0.001)。受试者工作特征曲线分析的曲线下面积表明,使用超声心动图或有创测量所得的搏动指数均无法区分CTEPH和PAH。与PAH相比,CTEPH患者有创测量所得的肺动脉搏动指数以及超声心动图测定的PP/PAMP指数更高。然而,由于存在重要的重叠,无法给出这些参数的最佳阈值以在临床实践中令人满意地鉴别这两种疾病。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验