PloS one · 2025
The value of vector ECG in predicting residual pulmonary hypertension in CTEPH patients after pulmonary endarterectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Luijten Dieuwke, Rodenburg Tamara, Bogaard Harm-Jan, Kianzad Azar, Ruigrok Dieuwertje, Croon Philip, Smeele Patrick, Vliegen Hubert W, Vonk Noordegraaf Anton, Meijboom Lilian J, Klok Frederikus A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Right heart catheterization (RHC) is the diagnostic standard for establishing residual pulmonary hypertension (PH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). A potential non-invasive alternative diagnostic test could be electrocardiography (ECG)-derived ventricular gradient optimized for right ventricular pressure overload (VG-RVPO).
METHODS: We studied 66 CTEPH patients who underwent PEA. A subgroup of 20 patients also had a cardiac MRI before and after PEA. The diagnostic performance of the VG-RVPO for the detection of residual PH as well as the potential to replace RHC were assessed. Different cut-off values to define a normal VG-RVPO were evaluated. Also, we evaluated the association between mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and CMR derived indexed right ventricular (RV) mass and the VG-RVPO.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 28 patients had residual PH (42%). A decrease in VG-RVPO after PEA was associated with decrease in mPAP or indexed RV mass post PEA (r = 0.55, p < 0.05 and r = 0.64, p < 0.05, respectively). If a normal VG-RVPO would exclude residual PH, the need for RHC would be reduced with 15-48%, but up to 36% of the CTEPH patients with residual PH would have been missed as they had a normal VG-RVPO.
CONCLUSION: Although there was an association between the change in VG-RPVO and changes in mPAP or indexed RV mass, our study demonstrated that VG-RPVO has limited value in excluding the presence of residual PH post-PEA as up to 36% of the CTEPH patients with residual PH would have been missed if residual PH would have been excluded based on a normal VG-RVPO.
METHODS: We studied 66 CTEPH patients who underwent PEA. A subgroup of 20 patients also had a cardiac MRI before and after PEA. The diagnostic performance of the VG-RVPO for the detection of residual PH as well as the potential to replace RHC were assessed. Different cut-off values to define a normal VG-RVPO were evaluated. Also, we evaluated the association between mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and CMR derived indexed right ventricular (RV) mass and the VG-RVPO.
RESULTS: During follow-up, 28 patients had residual PH (42%). A decrease in VG-RVPO after PEA was associated with decrease in mPAP or indexed RV mass post PEA (r = 0.55, p < 0.05 and r = 0.64, p < 0.05, respectively). If a normal VG-RVPO would exclude residual PH, the need for RHC would be reduced with 15-48%, but up to 36% of the CTEPH patients with residual PH would have been missed as they had a normal VG-RVPO.
CONCLUSION: Although there was an association between the change in VG-RPVO and changes in mPAP or indexed RV mass, our study demonstrated that VG-RPVO has limited value in excluding the presence of residual PH post-PEA as up to 36% of the CTEPH patients with residual PH would have been missed if residual PH would have been excluded based on a normal VG-RVPO.