Right Ventricle Free Wall Longitudinal Strain Screening of Lung Transplant Candidates
Author Information
Author(s): Vittorio Scaravilli, Silvia Scansani, Paolo Meani, Gloria Turconi, Amedeo Guzzardella, Marco Bosone, Claudia Bonetti, Marco Vicenzi, Letizia Corinna Morlacchi, Valeria Rossetti, Lorenzo Rosso, Francesco Blasi, Mario Nosotti, Giacomo Grasselli
Primary Institution: Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda—Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
Hypothesis
Patients enlisted for lung transplantation may have impaired RV free wall longitudinal strain, and that RVFWLS can have better diagnostic capabilities in detecting RV dysfunction compared to standard two-dimensional echocardiography and ventriculography.
Conclusion
In patients enlisted for lung transplantation, RV dysfunction assessed by STE-derived RVFWLS is highly prevalent and can detect RV dysfunction better than standard echocardiography and ventriculography.
Supporting Evidence
- 47% of patients showed RV dysfunction as assessed by RVFWLS.
- Standard echocardiographic measures had low sensitivity for detecting RV dysfunction compared to RVFWLS.
- Only 23% of patients had pulmonary hypertension at cardiac catheterization.
Takeaway
This study found that many patients waiting for lung transplants have problems with their heart's right side, which can be better detected using a special ultrasound technique.
Methodology
A single-center prospective observational cohort study where lung transplant candidates underwent cardiac catheterization, radionuclide ventriculography, standard echocardiography, and speckle-tracking echocardiography.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to the exclusion of patients with poor acoustic windows for echocardiographic evaluation.
Limitations
The study had a small sample size and was conducted at a single center, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Participant Demographics
34 patients with a mean age of 48 years, 41% female, primarily diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and cystic fibrosis.
Statistical Information
Confidence Interval
[-22.5%, -17%]
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website