Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Original article
RV-pulmonary arterial coupling predicts outcome in patients referred for pulmonary hypertension
  1. Rebecca R Vanderpool1,
  2. Michael R Pinsky2,3,4,
  3. Robert Naeije5,
  4. Christopher Deible6,
  5. Vijaya Kosaraju7,
  6. Cheryl Bunner2,
  7. Michael A Mathier2,
  8. Joan Lacomis6,
  9. Hunter C Champion1,2,8,
  10. Marc A Simon1,2,3
  1. 1Vascular Medicine Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2Heart & Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
  6. 6Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  7. 7School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  8. 8Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marc A Simon, Cardiovascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Scaife Hall S-554, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; simonma{at}upmc.edu

Abstract

Objective Prognosis in pulmonary hypertension (PH) is largely determined by RV function. However, uncertainty remains about what metrics of RV function might be most clinically relevant. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical relevance of metrics of RV functional adaptation to increased afterload.

Methods Patients referred for PH underwent right heart catheterisation and RV volumetric assessment within 48 h. A RV maximum pressure (Pmax) was calculated from the RV pressure curve. The adequacy of RV systolic functional adaptation to increased afterload was estimated either by a stroke volume (SV)/end-systolic volume (ESV) ratio, a Pmax/mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) ratio, or by EF (RVEF). Diastolic function of the RV was estimated by a diastolic elastance coefficient β. Survival analysis was via Cox proportional HR, and Kaplan–Meier with the primary outcome of time to death or lung transplant.

Results Patients (n=50; age 58±13 yrs) covered a range of mPAP (13–79 mm Hg) with an average RVEF of 39±17% and ESV of 143±89 mL. Average estimates of the ratio of end-systolic ventricular to arterial elastance were 0.79±0.67 (SV/ESV) and 2.3±0.65 (Pmax/mPAP-1). Transplantation-free survival was predicted by right atrial pressure, mPAP, pulmonary vascular resistance, β, SV, ESV, SV/ESV and RVEF, but after controlling for right atrial pressure, mPAP, and SV, SV/ESV was the only independent predictor.

Conclusions The adequacy of RV functional adaptation to afterload predicts survival in patients referred for PH. Whether this can simply be evaluated using RV volumetric imaging will require additional confirmation.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.