Suppr超能文献

基于多参数与下腔静脉的右心房压力估计

Multiparametric vs. Inferior Vena Cava-Based Estimation of Right Atrial Pressure.

作者信息

Toma Matteo, Giovinazzo Stefano, Crimi Gabriele, Masoero Giovanni, Balbi Manrico, Montecucco Fabrizio, Canepa Marco, Porto Italo, Ameri Pietro

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Mar 8;8:632302. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.632302. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/81e1/7982413/b33616e63199/fcvm-08-632302-g0001.jpg

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