Key result
Estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (cutoff 2.76 Wood units) improved portopulmonary hypertension screening with 100% sensitivity and 73% specificity, versus 91% and 48% for ePASP.
Why the study?
Estimation of pulmonary artery systolic pressure (ePASP) on echocardiography has limitations in sensitivity and specificity when screening liver transplant candidates for portopulmonary hypertension.
Does estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (ePVR) improve the accuracy of portopulmonary hypertension screening compared to ePASP in liver transplant candidates?
Observational (n=150)
Does estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (ePVR) improve the accuracy of portopulmonary hypertension screening compared to ePASP in liver transplant candidates?
Incorporating estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (ePVR) into echocardiographic screening algorithms improves the accuracy of detecting portopulmonary hypertension in liver transplant candidates compared to ePASP alone.
ePVR may refine echocardiographic PoPH screening in liver transplant candidates; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Despite limitations in sensitivity and specificity, estimation of the pulmonary artery systolic pressure (ePASP) on echocardiography is used for portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) screening in liver transplant (LT) candidates. We proposed that alternative echocardiographic models, such as estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (ePVR), may provide improved testing characteristics in PoPH screening. In a retrospective analysis of 100 LT candidates, we found that the formula ePVR = ePASP/VTI RVOT + 3 if MSN (VTI RVOT = right ventricular outflow tract time velocity integral; MSN = mid‐systolic notching of the VTI RVOT Doppler signal) significantly improves accuracy of PoPH screening compared to ePASP. We determined the optimal ePVR cutoff for PoPH screening to be 2.76 Wood units, as this cutoff provided 100% sensitivity and 73% specificity in screening for clinically significant PoPH. Comparatively, ePASP at a cutoff of 40 mm Hg provided 91% sensitivity and 48% specificity. We devised a new screening algorithm based on the use of ePVR at intermediate ePASP values (35‐54 mm Hg), and we confirmed the testing characteristics of this algorithm in a separate validation cohort of 50 LT candidates. In screening LT candidates for PoPH, the ePASP lacks accuracy, leading to unnecessary RHCs and undiagnosed cases of PoPH. A screening algorithm which incorporates the ePVR may be more reliable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DesJardin et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Portopulmonary hypertension in liver transplant candidates (n=150). Estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (ePVR) vs. Estimated pulmonary artery systolic pressure (ePASP) was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity for clinically significant portopulmonary hypertension. Estimated pulmonary vascular resistance (cutoff 2.76 Wood units) improved portopulmonary hypertension screening with 100% sensitivity and 73% specificity, versus 91% and 48% for ePASP.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: