Why the study?
Heart failure readmission is a major health problem, and both pulmonary artery pressure and thoracic impedance are utilized for early identification of decompensation, but the correlation between them remains unassessed.
Does thoracic impedance correlate with remotely monitored pulmonary artery pressure in patients with chronic systolic heart failure?
Does thoracic impedance correlate with remotely monitored pulmonary artery pressure in patients with chronic systolic heart failure?
In patients with NYHA class III systolic heart failure, weekly variations in thoracic impedance do not significantly correlate with changes in remotely monitored pulmonary artery diastolic pressure.
No correlation found between weekly PAP and TI changes; leaves open whether combined remote monitoring improves HF decompensation prediction.
Background: Heart failure (HF) readmission continues to be a major health problem. Monitoring pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and thoracic impedance (TI) are the two modalities utilized for early identification of decompensation in HF patients. We aimed to assess the correlation between these two modalities in patients who simultaneously had both the devices. Methods: Patients with history of New York Heart Association class III systolic HF with a pre-implanted intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) capable of monitoring TI and pre-implanted CardioMEMs™ remote HF monitoring device were included. Hemodynamic data including TI and PAPs were measured at baseline and then weekly. Weekly percentage change was then calculated as: Weekly percentage change = (week 2 - week1)/week 1 × 100. Variability between the methods was expressed by Bland-Altman analysis. Significance was determined as a P-value < 0.05. Results: Nine patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant correlation between the assessed weekly percentage changes in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PAdP) and TI measurements (r = -0.180, P = 0.065). Using Bland-Altman analytic methods, both methods had no significant difference in agreement (0.011±0.094%, P = 0.215). With the linear regression model applied for Bland-Altman analysis, the two methods appeared to have proportional bias without agreement (unstandardized beta-coefficient of 1.91, t 22.9, P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that variations exist between measurement of PAdP and TI; however, there is no significant correlation between weekly variations between them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aggarwal et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: