Key result
Peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity strongly correlated with TR-derived mean pulmonary artery pressure (r=0.691, P<0.001), whereas pulmonary acceleration time had a weaker correlation (r=0.319).
Why the study?
Tricuspid regurgitation velocity is the standard noninvasive method to estimate mean pulmonary artery pressure but may be unreliable in some clinical settings, necessitating evaluation of alternative echocardiographic parameters.
Do pulmonary acceleration time and peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity correlate with tricuspid regurgitation velocity for estimating mean pulmonary artery pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe pulmonary hypertension?
Cross-Sectional (n=40)
Do pulmonary acceleration time and peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity correlate with tricuspid regurgitation velocity for estimating mean pulmonary artery pressure in patients with moderate-to-severe pulmonary hypertension?
Effect estimate: r = 0.691
p-value: p=<0.001
Peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity is a reliable alternative to tricuspid regurgitation for estimating mean pulmonary artery pressure, while pulmonary acceleration time is useful for identifying severe pulmonary hypertension in patients with RV dysfunction.
PR-derived mPAP correlates with TR estimates; supports alternative echocardiographic approach but leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
Background: Doppler echocardiography using tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity is the standard noninvasive technique for estimating mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP). However, TR-based assessment may be unreliable in certain clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate pulmonary acceleration time (PAT) and peak pulmonary regurgitation (PR) velocity as alternative echocardiographic parameters for mPAP estimation. Materials and Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study included 40 patients with moderate-to-severe pulmonary hypertension (PH) who underwent clinical evaluation, electrocardiography, and echocardiography. Mean pulmonary artery pressure was estimated using TR velocity, PR velocity, and PAT. Correlations among these methods were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation test. Results: The mean age of the participants was 53.8 ± 15.2 years, with a predominance of females (62.5%). PR-derived mPAP demonstrated a strong positive correlation with TR-derived mPAP ( r = 0.691, P < 0.001), whereas PAT showed a weaker but statistically significant correlation ( r = 0.319, P = 0.045). PAT tended to overestimate mPAP and classified severe PH more frequently (70%). Among patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, PAT reclassified a substantial proportion of moderate PH cases as severe ( P = 0.037). Conclusion: Peak PR velocity showed good agreement with TR-derived mPAP and may serve as a reliable alternative when TR measurements are inadequate. Although PAT demonstrated a weaker correlation, it proved useful in identifying severe PH, particularly in the presence of RV dysfunction. The combined application of these echocardiographic parameters may improve the noninvasive evaluation of PH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasidharan et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in moderate-to-severe pulmonary hypertension (n=40). Peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity and pulmonary acceleration time vs. Tricuspid regurgitation velocity was evaluated on Correlation of estimated mean pulmonary artery pressure with TR-derived measurements (r = 0.691, p=<0.001). Peak pulmonary regurgitation velocity strongly correlated with TR-derived mean pulmonary artery pressure (r=0.691, P<0.001), whereas pulmonary acceleration time had a weaker correlation (r=0.319).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: