Key result
IVC collapsibility index under 60% outperforms standard echo in identifying elevated right atrial pressure.
Why the study?
The diagnostic performance of American Society of Echocardiography IVC criteria for estimating right atrial pressure in patients with congenital heart disease is unknown.
Do IVC dynamics accurately estimate right atrial pressure in adults with congenital heart disease?
Observational (n=918)
No
Do IVC dynamics accurately estimate right atrial pressure in adults with congenital heart disease?
Effect estimate: AUC difference 0.15
p-value: p=<0.001
An IVC collapsibility index <60% provides superior diagnostic and prognostic performance for estimating right atrial pressure in adults with congenital heart disease compared to standard ASE criteria.
May refine right atrial pressure estimation in congenital heart disease; supports prospective validation before practice change.
Background: Inferior vena cava (IVC) size and collapsibility (IVC dynamics) are used for estimating right atrial pressure (RAP). However, the diagnostic performance of the American Society of Echocardiography IVC criteria for estimating RAP in patients with congenital heart disease are unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the role of IVC dynamics for estimating RAP in adults with congenital heart disease. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of adults with congenital heart disease that underwent cardiac catheterization and echocardiogram at Mayo Clinic (2003–2019). IVC diameter was measured at inspiration (IVC min ) and end-expiration (IVC max ), and IVC collapsibility index (IVC CI ) was calculated. Results: Based on 918 patients, we observed a good correlation between IVC max and invasive RAP ( r =0.56, P <0.001); IVC min and RAP ( r =0.58, P <0.001); and IVC CI ( r =−0.72, P <0.001). There was excellent correlation between invasive RAP and estimated RAP using IVC CI ( r =0.80, P <0.001). We observed that IVC CI <60% had superior diagnostic performance as compared with American Society of Echocardiography criteria (IVC max >2.1 cm, area under the curve difference 0.15, P <0.001; IVC CI <50%, area under the curve difference 0.09, P =0.008; combination of IVC max >2.1 cm; and IVC CI <50%, area under the curve difference 0.06, P =0.02). Estimated RAP >10 mm Hg based on IVC CI had comparable prognostic performance as invasive RAP but superior prognostic performance as the American Society of Echocardiography criteria. Conclusions: IVC CI <60% was the best criterion to identify patients with elevated RAP. IVC CI was comparable to invasively measured RAP in its relation to prognosis. Further studies are required to determine whether the use of IVC CI in clinical decision-making will improve clinical outcomes in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Egbe et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Congenital heart disease (n=918). Inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC CI) vs. American Society of Echocardiography IVC criteria was evaluated on Diagnostic performance for estimating right atrial pressure (AUC difference 0.15, p=<0.001). An IVC collapsibility index <60% had superior diagnostic performance for identifying elevated right atrial pressure compared to standard echocardiography criteria (AUC difference 0.15, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: