Premium
What is the most useful imaging parameter to explore the prognostic value of the right ventricular function at the time of multimodality cardiovascular imaging?
Author(s) -
Cazalbou Stéphanie,
Chong Fah Shen Vanessa,
Petermann Antoine,
Eyharts Damien,
Fournier Pauline,
Cariou Eve,
LavieBadie Yoan,
Hennig Alexia,
Roncalli Jérôme,
Rousseau Hervé,
Carrié Didier,
Galinier Michel,
Berry Isabelle,
Lairez Olivier
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
echocardiography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1540-8175
pISSN - 0742-2822
DOI - 10.1111/echo.14686
Subject(s) - cardiology , medicine , ventricle , ejection fraction , heart failure , fractional shortening , receiver operating characteristic
A bstract Background Right ventricular (RV) function is a powerful independent predictor of adverse heart failure outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of main RV systolic imaging parameters for outcome. Methods Seventy‐nine patients underwent comprehensive cardiovascular imaging modalities including transthoracic echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and tomographic equilibrium radionuclide ventriculography (ERV) for the assessment of RV function. The composite primary endpoint (CPE) was defined by the occurrence of death, heart transplantation, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or new‐onset acute heart failure. Results During a mean follow‐up of 13 ± 9 months, 15 (19%) patients reached the CPE. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves for the prediction of the CPE were 0.922 ( P < .001), 0.913 ( P < .001), 0.906 ( P < .001), 0.849 ( P = .002), 0.837 ( P = .003), 0.799 ( P = .009), 0.792 ( P = .011), 0.753 ( P = .026), 0.720 ( P = .053), and 0.608 ( P = .346) for integral systolic S’ wave tricuspid annular velocity, RV free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS), RV fractional area change, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, RV ejection fraction (RVEF) by CMR using the 4‐chamber slices, peak systolic S’ wave tricuspid annular velocity, RVEF by CMR using short‐axis slices, RVEF by ERV, RV myocardial performance index, and RV myocardial acceleration during isovolumic contraction, respectively. Conclusion Echocardiographic parameters, and particularly integral systolic S’ wave tricuspid annular velocity and RVFWLS, have the best prognostic performance.