Minerva medica · 2022
Main pulmonary artery diameter in combination with cardiovascular biomarkers: new possibilities to identify pulmonary hypertension in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Boxhammer Elke, Paar Vera, Jirak Peter, Köller Clara, Demirel Ozan, Eder Sarah, Reiter Christian, Kammler Jürgen, Kellermair Jörg, Hammerer Matthias, Blessberger Hermann, Steinwender Clemens, Hoppe Uta C, Lichtenauer Michael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is currently the noninvasive method of choice to screen patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) for pulmonary hypertension (PH) by estimating systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP). However, radiological options are also available by determining the main pulmonary artery (MPA) diameter in the setting of CT angiography. The aim of the present study was to compare cardiovascular biomarkers with the MPA diameter to allow other ways of detecting PH in patients with severe AS.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-four patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) were included in this study and were divided into two groups based on the CT-angiographically determined MPA diameter. In accordance with ESC guidelines, a cut-off value of 29 mm was determined in this study, with the absence of PH defined by an MPA diameter <29 mm (N79/194) and the presence of PH defined by an MPA diameter ≥29 mm (115/194). Immediately before interventional aortic valve replacement, blood samples were drawn from the subjects and relevant cardiovascular biomarkers such as BNP, cTnI, GDF-15, H-FABP, IGF-BP2 and suPAR were assessed.
RESULTS: Patients with an MPA diameter ≥29 mm had significantly higher BNP (P=0.004), cTnI (P=0.039) and H-FABP (P=0.015) plasma levels, whereas GDF-15 (P=0.140), IGF-BP2 (P=0.088) and suPAR (P=0.140) showed no significant differences. In addition, cut-off values were calculated to predict an MPA diameter ≥29 mm. Significant results were shown with 1634.00 pg/mL for BNP (P=0.004), with 16.50 pg/mL for cTnI (P=0.039) and with 1.16 ng/mL for H-FABP (P=0.016). In a combined biomarker analysis, the 2-way combination of BNP and IGF-BP2 (AUC 0.671; 95%CI 0.538-0.805; P=0.023) and the 3-way combination of BNP, H-FABP and IGF-BP2 (AUC 0.685; 95%CI 0.551-0.818; P=0.015) showed the best results. Biomarker follow-up at 3 and 12 months after TAVR did not require additional information gain. Regarding 1-year survival, no significant difference could be detected between patients with an MPA diameter<29 mm compared to patients with ≥29 mm (log-rank test: P=0.262).
CONCLUSIONS: The MPA diameter remains a controversial parameter for the detection of PH in patients with severe AS. Standing on its own, this non-invasive parameter may not be precise enough to detect PH accurately. Combining this parameter with several biomarkers did not provide significant additional information.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-four patients with severe AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) were included in this study and were divided into two groups based on the CT-angiographically determined MPA diameter. In accordance with ESC guidelines, a cut-off value of 29 mm was determined in this study, with the absence of PH defined by an MPA diameter <29 mm (N79/194) and the presence of PH defined by an MPA diameter ≥29 mm (115/194). Immediately before interventional aortic valve replacement, blood samples were drawn from the subjects and relevant cardiovascular biomarkers such as BNP, cTnI, GDF-15, H-FABP, IGF-BP2 and suPAR were assessed.
RESULTS: Patients with an MPA diameter ≥29 mm had significantly higher BNP (P=0.004), cTnI (P=0.039) and H-FABP (P=0.015) plasma levels, whereas GDF-15 (P=0.140), IGF-BP2 (P=0.088) and suPAR (P=0.140) showed no significant differences. In addition, cut-off values were calculated to predict an MPA diameter ≥29 mm. Significant results were shown with 1634.00 pg/mL for BNP (P=0.004), with 16.50 pg/mL for cTnI (P=0.039) and with 1.16 ng/mL for H-FABP (P=0.016). In a combined biomarker analysis, the 2-way combination of BNP and IGF-BP2 (AUC 0.671; 95%CI 0.538-0.805; P=0.023) and the 3-way combination of BNP, H-FABP and IGF-BP2 (AUC 0.685; 95%CI 0.551-0.818; P=0.015) showed the best results. Biomarker follow-up at 3 and 12 months after TAVR did not require additional information gain. Regarding 1-year survival, no significant difference could be detected between patients with an MPA diameter<29 mm compared to patients with ≥29 mm (log-rank test: P=0.262).
CONCLUSIONS: The MPA diameter remains a controversial parameter for the detection of PH in patients with severe AS. Standing on its own, this non-invasive parameter may not be precise enough to detect PH accurately. Combining this parameter with several biomarkers did not provide significant additional information.