Journal of electrocardiology, Volume 74, 27 4 2022, Pages 94-100 Diagnostic efficacy of ECG-derived ventricular gradient for the detection of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Luijten D, Meijer FMM, Boon GJAM, Ende-Verhaar YM, Bavalia R, El Bouazzaoui LH, Delcroix M, Huisman MV, Mairuhu ATA, Middeldorp S, Pruszcyk P, Ruigrok D, Verhamme P, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Vriend JWJ, Vliegen HW, Klok FA
Introduction
Application of the chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) rule out criteria (manual electrocardiogram [ECG] reading and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NTproBNP] test) can rule out CTEPH in pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with persistent dyspnea (InShape II algorithm). Increased pulmonary pressure may also be identified using automated ECG-derived ventricular gradient optimized for right ventricular pressure overload (VG-RVPO).
Method
A predefined analysis of the InShape II study was performed. The diagnostic performance of the VG-RVPO for the detection of CTEPH and the incremental diagnostic value of the VG-RVPO as new rule-out criteria in the InShape II algorithm were evaluated.
Results
60 patients were included; 5 (8.3%) were ultimately diagnosed with CTEPH. The mean baseline VG-RVPO (at time of PE diagnosis) was -18.12 mV·ms for CTEPH patients and - 21.57 mV·ms for non-CTEPH patients (mean difference 3.46 mV·ms [95%CI -29.03 to 35.94]). The VG-RVPO (after 3-6 months follow-up) normalized in patients with and without CTEPH, without a clear between-group difference (mean Δ VG-RVPO of -8.68 and - 8.42 mV·ms respectively; mean difference of -0.25 mV·ms, [95%CI -12.94 to 12.44]). The overall predictive accuracy of baseline VG-RVPO, follow-up RVPO and Δ VG-RVPO for CTEPH was moderate to poor (ROC AUC 0.611, 0.514 and 0.539, respectively). Up to 76% of the required echocardiograms could have been avoided with VG-RVPO criteria replacing the InShape II rule-out criteria, however at cost of missing up to 80% of the CTEPH diagnoses.
Conclusion
We could not demonstrate (additional) diagnostic value of VG-RVPO as standalone test or as on top of the InShape II algorithm.
