Key result
Echo-derived ePAWP-E shows only moderate discrimination for elevated invasive PAWP in advanced heart failure.
Why the study?
The accuracy of echocardiographic equations to estimate pulmonary artery wedge pressure in patients with advanced heart failure remains uncertain.
Does echocardiographic estimation of PAWP accurately reflect invasive right heart catheterization measurements in patients with advanced heart failure?
Observational (n=172)
Does echocardiographic estimation of PAWP accurately reflect invasive right heart catheterization measurements in patients with advanced heart failure?
Echocardiographic equations correlate only moderately with invasive PAWP in advanced heart failure and do not accurately reflect acute changes from vasodilator therapy, maintaining the necessity for invasive right heart catheterization in this population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution against relying on ePAWP-E for PAWP estimation in advanced HF; leaves open whether refined non-invasive methods can achieve clinical utility.
Several equations have been proposed to non-invasively estimate pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) and have been validated against right heart catheterization (RHC). However, their accuracy in patients with advanced heart failure (AdvHF) remains uncertain. We assessed the agreement between echocardiographic and invasive PAWP measurements at rest and during vasodilator testing. Consecutive patients referred for AdvHF undergoing paired transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and RHC within 24 hours were prospectively enrolled. Echocardiographic PAWP was calculated with the Nagueh E/e' equation and with the left atrial volume index (LAVi) and mitral E-based equation reported by Lindow (ePAWP-E). Agreement with invasive PAWP was assessed by Spearman correlation and Blant-Altman analysis, and discrimination for elevated PAWP (≥ 15 mmHg) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, overall and in the pre-specified subgroup with left atrial volume index (LAVi) < 48 mL/m². In patients undergoing sodium nitroprusside challenge, invasive and echocardiographic PAWP change (ΔPAWP) was analyzed and compared. Of 176 patients enrolled, 172 (mean age was 52.6 ± 12.1 years and 76.2% were males), had an interpretable PAWP and formed the analytic cohort; 77 (44.8%) had PAWP ≥ 15 mmHg. Correlation with invasive PAWP was ρ = 0.452 for Nagueh (n = 148) and ρ = 0.550 for ePAWP-E (n = 156, both p < 0.001), with AUC 0.759 (95% CI 0.677-0.833) and 0.798 (95% CI 0723-0.864). Both equations overestimated invasive PAWP (bias + 3.2 and + 2.6 mmHg) with wide limits of agreement (-13.3 to + 19.7 and - 11.6 to + 16.8 mmHg). In the LAVi < 48 mL/m² subgroup, agreement improved (ρ = 0.496 vs. 0.655; AUC 0.850 and 0.927) and the limits of agreement for ePAWP-E narrowed to - 8.3 to + 10.3 mmHg. During nitroprusside challenge, invasive ΔPAWP was 9.6 ± 7.6 mmHg whereas echocardiographic ΔePAWP was 2.4 ± 5.6 mmHg (Nagueh, n = 33) and 1.5 ± 6.0 mmHg (ePAWP-E, n = 34; both p < 0.001 vs. invasive), with weak Δ correlations (ρ = 0.414 and 0.389). In AdvHF, echocardiographic equations correlate only moderately with invasive PAWP and are not accurate enough for individual-level quantification. The LAVi- and E-based equation performs best and may be used to rule in or rule out elevated filling pressures at rest when the left atrium is not severely dilated. Neither equation tracks the acute PAWP changes induced by vasodilator challenge, so RHC remains indispensable whenever the clinical question is dynamic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pascalis et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Advanced heart failure (n=172). Echocardiographic estimation of pulmonary artery wedge pressure (Nagueh and ePAWP-E equations) vs. Invasive right heart catheterization (RHC) was evaluated on Discrimination for elevated PAWP (≥ 15 mmHg) (AUC 0.798, 95% CI 0.723-0.864, p=<0.001). In patients with advanced heart failure, the ePAWP-E echocardiographic equation correlated only moderately with invasive PAWP measurement (AUC 0.798; 95% CI 0.723-0.864; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: