Key result
Right ventricular global longitudinal strain was significantly more impaired in pressure versus volume overload (-12.1% vs -20.2%, P<0.001), with a cut-off below -16% predicting pressure overload.
Why the study?
Does right ventricular speckle tracking assessment (RVGLS and RV-free) improve differentiation of pressure- versus volume-overloaded right ventricle compared to conventional measures in patients with a trans-tricuspid gradient >30 mmHg?
Observational (n=89)
Does right ventricular speckle tracking assessment (RVGLS and RV-free) improve differentiation of pressure- versus volume-overloaded right ventricle compared to conventional measures in patients with a trans-tricuspid gradient >30 mmHg?
Absolute Event Rate: -12.1% vs -20.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
Right ventricular speckle tracking strain parameters (RVGLS and RV-free) are superior to conventional echocardiographic measures in differentiating pressure from volume overload.
RV strain may aid overload differentiation; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction may be caused by either pressure or volume overload. RV function is conventionally assessed with echocardiography using tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid lateral annular systolic velocity (S') and RV index of myocardial performance (RIMP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether RV global longitudinal strain (RVGLS) and RV-free wall strain (RV-free) could add additional information to differentiate these two causes of RV overload. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 89 patients with an echocardiographic trans-tricuspid gradient >30 mmHg. Forty-five patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (pressure overload) were compared with 44 patients with an atrial septum defect (volume overload). RV size was larger in the volume group (P<0·05). TAPSE and S' were lower in the pressure group (P<0·05, P<0·01). RVFAC was lower in the pressure group (P<0·001) as well as RVGLS (-12·1 ± 3·3% versus -20·2 ± 3·4%, P<0·001) and RV-free (-12·9 ± 3·3% versus -19·4 ± 3·4%, P<0·001). CONCLUSION: In this study, RVGLS and RV-free could more accurately discriminate RV pressure from volume overload than conventional measures. The reason could be that TAPSE and S' are unable to differentiate active deformation from passive entrainment caused by the left ventricle. The pressure group had evidence of marked RV hypertrophy despite standard functional parameters (TAPSE and S) within normal range. This would enhance the value of strain to more sensitively detect abnormal function. A cut-off value of below -16% for RVGLS and RV-free predicts RV pressure overload with high accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Evaldsson et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Right ventricular overload (n=89). Pressure overload vs. Volume overload was evaluated on Right ventricular global longitudinal strain (RVGLS) (p=<0.001). Right ventricular global longitudinal strain was significantly more impaired in pressure versus volume overload (-12.1% vs -20.2%, P<0.001), with a cut-off below -16% predicting pressure overload.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: