Key result
Admission lung ultrasound is linked to ~14% higher in-hospital major cardiovascular events risk in STEMI, unlike LVEDP.
Why the study?
Both LVEDP and bedside LUS show prognostic value in STEMI, but their correlation and comparative prognostic value in primary PCI remained to be evaluated.
Does admission lung ultrasound provide better prognostic value for in-hospital MACE compared to left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Cohort (n=218)
Single-blind
No
Does admission lung ultrasound provide better prognostic value for in-hospital MACE compared to left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Admission lung ultrasound is a stronger independent predictor of in-hospital MACE than invasive left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Lung ultrasound may aid bedside risk stratification in STEMI; leaves open whether it outperforms LVEDP in prospective validation.
Background: Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is related to ventricular dysfunction and increased retrograde pulmonary capillary pressure. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a sensitive and easy-to-use method for assessment of pulmonary congestion. Both methods have shown prognostic value in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate the correlation between LVEDP and bedside LUS and to compare their prognostic value in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: Prospective cohort study of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients treated in a tertiary care hospital in Brazil. LUS was performed immediately before coronary angiography. LVEDP was recorded before primary percutaneous coronary intervention, blinded to LUS results. Primary outcome was any in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as in-hospital mortality, new myocardial infarction, stroke, and new cardiogenic shock. Results: In total, 218 patients were included; their mean age was 60 (±12) years, and 64% were men. Cardiogenic shock was present in 16.5% of patients on admission. Overall in-hospital mortality was 15%. Median LVEDP was 19 mm Hg (interquartile range, 13–28); median LUS zones positive for pulmonary congestion were 1/patient (interquartile range, 0–5); Spearman correlation between them was 0.33 ( P <0.001). LVEDP and LUS C statistic for in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event was 0.63 ([95% CI, 0.55–0.70] P =0.002) and 0.71 ([95% CI, 0.64–0.77] P <0.001), respectively. In multivariable analysis, LUS remained associated with in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06–1.23]; P =0.01) for every positive LUS zone; LVEDP, however, did not (odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.99–1.03]; P =0.23). Conclusions: We found a weak correlation between LVEDP and LUS in our cohort of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Pulmonary congestion in acute heart failure is a complex pathophysiological process and goes beyond fluid overload and hemodynamics. Unlike LVEDP, LUS was significantly associated with in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event, new cardiogenic shock, and in-hospital mortality in multivariable analysis. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Araújo et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=218). Lung ultrasound (LUS) vs. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) was evaluated on Any in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event (in-hospital mortality, new myocardial infarction, stroke, and new cardiogenic shock) (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23, p=0.01). Admission lung ultrasound was associated with in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events in STEMI patients, whereas LVEDP was not.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: