Does a low TAPSE/SPAP ratio predict worse survival and disease severity in patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary arterial hypertension?
A lower TAPSE/SPAP ratio (< 0.15 mm/mmHg) is a useful noninvasive marker associated with more advanced disease, right ventricular dysfunction, and poorer survival in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a life-threatening condition characterized by elevated pulmonary artery pressure and progressive right ventricular dysfunction. The ratio of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion to systolic pulmonary artery pressure (TAPSE/SPAP) has been proposed as a noninvasive marker integrating right ventricular function and afterload. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and prognostic relevance of TAPSE/SPAP in patients with PAH. This study was a retrospective analysis of 125 patients newly diagnosed with PAH at the Xiangya Second Hospital between 2016 and 2022. The patients were divided into two groups based on the median TAPSE/SPAP ratio: a low TAPSE/SPAP group and a high TAPSE/SPAP group. The primary outcome was survival and follow-up was conducted until December 2023. The results showed that a lower TAPSE/SPAP ratio (< 0.15 mm/mmHg) was significantly associated with worse survival outcomes, with a higher mortality rate in the low TAPSE/SPAP group (17/63, 27%) than in the high group (7/62, 11.3%). The low TAPSE/SPAP group also exhibited more severe right ventricular remodeling and worse hemodynamic parameters. A significant inverse correlation was found between TAPSE/SPAP and both World Health Organization functional class and NT-proBNP levels, suggesting its role in noninvasive risk stratification. In this single-center retrospective cohort, a lower TAPSE/SPAP ratio was associated with more advanced disease and poorer outcomes in patients with PAH. Rather than serving as an independent prognostic predictor, TAPSE/SPAP may function as a composite, noninvasive marker reflecting right ventricular dysfunction and overall disease severity, and may be useful in clinical risk assessment when interpreted alongside established prognostic parameters.
Chen et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: