Key result
Passive leg raise PCWP during right heart catheterization achieved an AUROC of 0.82 (derivation) and 0.95 (validation) for diagnosing occult HFpEF compared to invasive exercise testing.
Why the study?
Does passive leg raise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP PLR) during right heart catheterization accurately diagnose occult HFpEF compared to invasive supine bike exercise testing in patients with unexplained dyspnea or pulmonary hypertension?
Does passive leg raise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP PLR) during right heart catheterization accurately diagnose occult HFpEF compared to invasive supine bike exercise testing in patients with unexplained dyspnea or pulmonary hypertension?
Passive leg raise during right heart catheterization provides an externally validated, simple maneuver to rule in (≥19 mm Hg) or rule out (<11 mm Hg) occult HFpEF, potentially reducing the need for invasive exercise testing in a subset of patients.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salazar et al. (2022) conducted an editorial in Unexplained dyspnea or pulmonary hypertension evaluated for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=183). Passive leg raise (PLR) during right heart catheterization vs. Invasive supine bike exercise right heart catheterization (gold standard) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (AUROC) of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure during passive leg raise (PCWP PLR) for diagnosing occult HFpEF (AUROC 0.82 in derivation cohort; AUROC 0.95 in validation cohort). Passive leg raise PCWP during right heart catheterization achieved an AUROC of 0.82 (derivation) and 0.95 (validation) for diagnosing occult HFpEF compared to invasive exercise testing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: