Key result
Echocardiographic RVSP correlates moderately with invasive PASP but lacks precision compared to RHC.
Why the study?
Agreement between echocardiographic RVSP and invasive PASP in a large real-world cohort remains uncertain.
How well do echocardiographic right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) jet velocity correlate with invasive pulmonary hemodynamics in detecting elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure?
Cohort (n=14,084)
Yes
How well do echocardiographic right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) jet velocity correlate with invasive pulmonary hemodynamics in detecting elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure?
Effect estimate: ρ=0.59
p-value: p=<.001
Echocardiographic RVSP and TR velocity show only moderate correlation and limited precision compared to invasive hemodynamics, reinforcing that right heart catheterization remains essential for definitive diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension.
Echocardiographic RVSP and TR velocity warrant cautious interpretation for PH screening; leaves open need for refined noninvasive estimators in real-world cohorts.
Background Echocardiography is widely used to screen for pulmonary hypertension and guide referral for right heart catheterization (RHC). Right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) estimates pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (PASP), yet their agreement in a large real-world cohort remains uncertain. Question How well do echocardiographic right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) jet velocity correlate with invasive pulmonary hemodynamics, and how do they compare in detecting elevated mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP)? Study Design and Methods Retrospective, multicenter cohort study of 14,084 adult patients undergoing RHC and echocardiography at two academic hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts. Diagnostic comparison was performed on a subset of 7,652 patients in which both RVSP and TR jet were available. Correlation and calibration were assessed using Spearman correlation, linear regression, and Bland–Altman analyses. Diagnostic performance for mPAP >20 mmHg and ≥35 mmHg was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC). Results Mean (SD) age was 66.6 (14.7) years. RVSP and PASP were moderately correlated (ρ=0.59; P<.001). Regression showed dynamic range compression (slope 0.63; intercept 16.6 mmHg), reflecting overestimation at lower and underestimation at higher PASP. Mean bias was minimal (0.08 mmHg), but limits of agreement were wide (±30 mmHg). For mPAP >20 mmHg, RVSP ≥35 mmHg was more sensitive than TR velocity ≥2.8 m/s (72% vs 61%) but less specific (66% vs 78%). For mPAP ≥35 mmHg, RVSP ≥50 mmHg and TR velocity ≥3.2 m/s performed similarly (AUC 0.76 vs 0.75). Interpretation RVSP showed moderate correlation but calibration error and limited precision relative to invasive PASP. Although RVSP and TR velocity demonstrated fair discrimination for elevated mPAP, RHC remains essential for definitive diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dao et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary hypertension (n=14,084). Echocardiographic RVSP and TR velocity vs. Invasive right heart catheterization (RHC) was evaluated on Correlation between RVSP and invasive PASP (ρ=0.59, p=<.001). Echocardiographic RVSP showed moderate correlation with invasive PASP (ρ=0.59; P<.001) but exhibited wide limits of agreement (±30 mmHg), indicating limited precision compared to RHC.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: