Toma Matteo, Giovinazzo Stefano, Crimi Gabriele, Masoero Giovanni, Balbi Manrico, Montecucco Fabrizio, Canepa Marco, Porto Italo, Ameri Pietro
Cardiovascular Disease Unit, Istituto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, IRCCS Italian Cardiology Network, Genova, Italy.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Mar 8;8:632302. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.632302. eCollection 2021.
Right atrial pressure (RAP) can be estimated by echocardiography from inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility (eRAP), tricuspid /' ratio ( ), or hepatic vein flow (eRAP). The mean of these estimates (eRAP) might be more accurate than single assessments. eRAP, , eRAP (categorized in 5, 10, 15, or 20 mmHg), eRAP (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 eRAP and iRAP (Spearman test = 0.66, < 0.001), with Bland-Altman test showing the best agreement for values <10 mmHg. There was also a trend for decreased concordance between eRAP, , eRAP, and iRAP across the 5- to 20-mmHg categories, and iRAP was significantly different from and eRAP for the 20-mmHg category (Wilcoxon signed-rank test = 0.02 and < 0.001, respectively). The areas under the curve in predicting iRAP were nonsignificantly better for eRAP than for eRAP 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 = 0.41] and 10-mmHg (0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.92 vs. 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96; = 0.43) thresholds. Our data suggest that multiparametric eRAP does not provide advantage over eRAP, despite being more complex and time-consuming.
右心房压力(RAP)可通过超声心动图,根据下腔静脉直径和可塌陷性(eRAP)、三尖瓣/比值( )或肝静脉血流(eRAP)来估算。这些估算值的平均值(eRAP)可能比单一评估更为准确。在43例连续接受右心导管检查的患者(中位年龄69岁[58 - 75岁],49%为男性)中,获取了eRAP、 、eRAP(分为5、10、15或20 mmHg)、eRAP(连续值)以及有创RAP(iRAP)。eRAP与iRAP之间存在正相关(Spearman检验 = 0.66, < 0.001),Bland - Altman检验显示,对于<10 mmHg的值,一致性最佳。在5至20 mmHg类别中,eRAP、 、eRAP与iRAP之间的一致性也有下降趋势,对于20 mmHg类别,iRAP与 和eRAP存在显著差异(Wilcoxon符号秩检验分别为 = 0.02和 < 0.001)。在预测iRAP方面,在5 mmHg [0.64,95%置信区间(CI)0.49 - 0.80对比0.70,95% CI 0.53 - 0.87;Wald检验 = 0.41]和10 mmHg(0.76,95% CI 0.60 - 0.92对比0.81,95% CI 0.67 - 0.96; = 0.43)阈值时,eRAP预测iRAP的曲线下面积并不显著优于eRAP。我们的数据表明,多参数eRAP尽管更为复杂且耗时,但相较于eRAP并无优势。