Key result
A 1-SD reduction in right ventricular ejection fraction assessed by 3D echocardiography was significantly associated with worse outcomes (HR 2.54; 95% CI 2.15-3.00).
Why the study?
Although 3DE reliably measures RVEF, which correlates with outcomes, its overall prognostic value and comparative performance versus LVEF and LVGLS needed systematic evaluation.
Does right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) assessed by 3DE predict cardiovascular outcomes better than LVEF or LVGLS in patients with PAH and CV diseases?
Meta-Analysis (n=3,228)
Does right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) assessed by 3DE predict cardiovascular outcomes better than LVEF or LVGLS in patients with PAH and CV diseases?
RVEF assessed by 3D echocardiography is a strong predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, with greater prognostic power than LVEF and similar to LVGLS.
3DE-derived RVEF may refine risk stratification in PAH and CV disease; extends prognostic evidence beyond LVEF.
AIMS: Three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is a robust method for measuring the right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF), which is closely associated with outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (1) to examine the prognostic value of RVEF and (2) to compare its prognostic value with that of left ventricular (LV) EF and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS). We also performed individual patient data analysis to validate the results. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched articles reporting the prognostic value of RVEF. Hazard ratios (HR) were re-scaled using the within-study standard deviation (SD). To compare predictive values of RVEF and LVEF or LVGLS, the ratio of HR related to a 1-SD reduction of RVEF versus LVEF or LVGLS was calculated. Pooled HR of RVEF and pooled ratio of HR were analyzed in a random-effects model. Fifteen articles with 3,228 subjects were included. Pooled HR of a 1-SD reduction of RVEF was 2.54 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-3.00). In subgroup analysis, RVEF was significantly associated with outcome in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) (HR: 2.79, 95% CI: 2.04-3.82) and cardiovascular (CV) diseases (HR: 2.23, 95%CI: 1.76-2.83). In studies reporting HRs for both RVEF and LVEF or RVEF and LVGLS in the same cohort, RVEF had 1.8-fold greater prognostic power per 1-SD reduction than LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.20-2.71), but had predictive value similar to that of LVGLS (ratio of HR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.91-1.31) and to LVEF in patients with reduced LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.34, 95%CI: 0.94-1.91). In individual patient data analysis (n = 1,142), RVEF < 45% was significantly associated with worse CV outcome (HR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.66-6.70), even in patients with reduced or preserved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis highlight and support the use of RVEF assessed by 3DE to predict CV outcomes in routine clinical practice in patients with CV diseases and in those with PAH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kitano et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Pulmonary arterial hypertension and cardiovascular diseases (n=3,228). Right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) assessment by 3D echocardiography vs. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) was evaluated on Prognostic value (outcomes) per 1-SD reduction of RVEF (HR 2.54, 95% CI 2.15-3.00). A 1-SD reduction in right ventricular ejection fraction assessed by 3D echocardiography was significantly associated with worse outcomes (HR 2.54; 95% CI 2.15-3.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: