Why the study?
Does PR volume better identify severe RV dilation compared to PR fraction in patients after tetralogy of Fallot repair?
Does PR volume better identify severe RV dilation compared to PR fraction in patients after tetralogy of Fallot repair?
In patients after tetralogy of Fallot repair, measuring pulmonary regurgitation by volume rather than fraction may more accurately reflect right ventricular preload and severe dilation.
May favor PR volume over fraction to identify severe RV dilation post-tetralogy of Fallot repair; hypothesis-generating and needs prospective validation.
AIMS: Pulmonary regurgitation (PR) is an important determinant of outcome after tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair. The physiologic impact of PR on the right ventricle remains incompletely understood. We hypothesized that a volumetric expression of PR would be a better measure of ventricular preload and a more accurate reflection of degree of insufficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 64) with magnetic resonance imaging after TOF repair were identified. PR was quantified using: (i) phase contrast (PC) analysis of main pulmonary artery flow and (ii) differential right and left ventricular stroke volumes. PR was expressed as a volume (PR(volume)) and percentage of total forward flow (PR(fraction)). The median PC(PR volume) was 19 mL/m(2) (range 0-63 mL/m(2)) and PC(PR fraction) was 29% (range 0-58%). PR(fraction) was found to be highly variable in terms of absolute PR(volume). In those with significant PR, PR(volume) was better than PR(fraction) for the identification of severe RV dilation (receiver-operator curve area: 0.83 vs. 0.71, P = 0.003). PR(volume) using PC analysis was better at differentiating moderate from severe RV dilation (P = 0.005) as compared with PR(fraction) (P = 0.064). CONCLUSION: PR(volume) and PR(fraction) are not interchangeable. PR(volume) may be a more accurate reflection of RV preload and may better represent physiologically significant PR as compared with PR(fraction).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wald et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: