Key result
Acute pulmonary embolism was not significantly associated with an RV/LV ratio ≥1 compared to patients without PE (70.4% vs 63%; OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.9-2.1; P=0.102).
Why the study?
An RV/LV diameter ratio >=1 is considered an important imaging risk stratification marker in acute PE, but its prevalence among all patients undergoing CT pulmonary angiography is unclear.
Does acute pulmonary embolism increase the prevalence of RV/LV ratio ≥1 compared to patients without PE undergoing CTPA?
Observational (n=862)
Does acute pulmonary embolism increase the prevalence of RV/LV ratio ≥1 compared to patients without PE undergoing CTPA?
Odds Ratio: 1.4 (95% CI 0.9–2.1)
Absolute Event Rate: 70.4% vs 63%
p-value: p=0.102
An RV/LV ratio ≥1 is highly prevalent among patients undergoing CTPA for suspected PE and does not significantly differ between those with and without confirmed PE, suggesting it may reflect baseline conditions rather than an acute response to PE.
AIM: Increased ratio between the right and left ventricular (RV/LV) diameters ≥1 is considered an important imaging marker for risk stratification among patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Our goal was to assess the prevalence of RV/LV≥1 among consecutive patients undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography, and to compare the prevalence of RV/LV≥1 between patients with and without PE. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography due to clinical suspicion of PE between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. The axial RV/LV diameters were measured. The prevalence of RV/LV ≥1 was compared between patients with and without PE and among PE patients, between those with central versus peripheral PE. RESULTS: The final cohort included 862 patients. A total of 142 (16.5%) had PE. RV/LV ≥1 was found in 553 (64.1%) of all patients, of them in 453 (63%) patients without PE and in 100 (70.4%) patients with PE (P=0.117). On multivariate analysis, PE was not significantly associated with RV/LV ≥1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-2.1; P=0.102). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of RV/LV ≥1 among patients with central versus peripheral PE distribution (79.5% vs. 67%, P=0.101). Older age (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02-1.04; P<0.001) and male gender (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.11-2.03; P=0.008), among all patients, were significantly associated with RV/LV diameter ≥1. CONCLUSION: As RV/LV ≥1 is highly prevalent (64.1%), without a significant difference between those with and without PE, an RV/LV ≥1 might not represent the cardiac response to the acute PE event, but rather the patient's baseline condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hadad et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism (n=862). Acute pulmonary embolism vs. No pulmonary embolism was evaluated on Prevalence of RV/LV ratio ≥1 (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9-2.1, p=0.102). Acute pulmonary embolism was not significantly associated with an RV/LV ratio ≥1 compared to patients without PE (70.4% vs 63%; OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.9-2.1; P=0.102).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: