What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Suspected ischemia or pulmonary hypertension (n=102). Intervention: Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) vs. Tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV). Primary outcome: Feasibility (success rate) of measurement (p=<0.0001).

What does this research mean for the field?

Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) is substantially more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography (99% vs 60% success rate) and correlates closely with invasive pulmonary arterial pressure. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

February 17, 2019European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging

The feasibility and clinical implication of tricuspid regurgitant velocity and pulmonary flow acceleration time evaluation for pulmonary pressure assessment during exercise stress echocardiography

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) was substantially more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography (99% vs 60%, P<0.0001).

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) is substantially more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography (99% vs 60% success rate) and correlates closely with invasive pulmonary arterial pressure. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) was substantially more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography (99% vs 60%, P<0.0001).

Why the study?

Echocardiography can estimate pulmonary arterial pressure from TRV or pulmonary flow ACT, but the feasibility and correlation of these measurements across all stages of exercise stress echocardiography required evaluation.

Does the measurement of pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) improve the feasibility of pulmonary pressure assessment compared to tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography?

Population

102 subjects referred for exercise tolerance assessment and ischaemia exclusion

Comparison

TRV continuous wave Doppler vs ACT pulsed Doppler during ESE

Design

Observational study

Authors

KWKarina Wierzbowska‐DrabikMedical University of Lodz EPEugenio PicanoCardiac Imaging EBEduardo BossoneGeneral Cardiology

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

ACT may support higher feasibility for pulmonary pressure assessment during exercise echocardiography; leaves open prospective validation and outcome impact.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=102)

Structured PICO

Population

102 subjects (mean age 49 ± 17 years, 50 females) referred for the assessment of exercise tolerance and ischaemia exclusion, including 39 healthy subjects, 30 with cardiovascular risk factors, and 33 with pulmonary hypertension (PH).

Intervention

Exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) with assessment of pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) using pulsed Doppler.

Comparator

Exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) with assessment of tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) using continuous wave Doppler.

Outcome

Feasibility (success rate) of TRV and ACT measurements during ESE and their correlation across all stages of ESE (rest, peak exercise, and recovery).surrogate

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 99% vs 60%

p-value: p=<0.0001

Pulmonary flow acceleration time is significantly more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity during exercise stress echocardiography and correlates well with invasive pulmonary pressures.

Cite This Study

Wierzbowska‐Drabik et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Suspected ischemia or pulmonary hypertension (n=102). Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) vs. Tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) was evaluated on Feasibility (success rate) of measurement (p=<0.0001). Pulmonary flow acceleration time (ACT) was substantially more feasible to measure than tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) during exercise stress echocardiography (99% vs 60%, P<0.0001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1ace6849c3147e1045f7e8 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez029

Topics

Tricuspid regurgitation

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

ACT may support higher feasibility for pulmonary pressure assessment during exercise echocardiography; leaves open prospective validation and outcome impact.

The feasibility and clinical implication of tricuspid regurgitant velocity and pulmonary flow acceleration time evaluation for pulmonary pressure assessment during exercise stress echocardiography

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Topics

The feasibility and clinical implication of tricuspid regurgitant velocity and pulmonary flow acceleration time evaluation for pulmonary pressure assessment during exercise stress echocardiography

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider