Pulmonary Artery Pulsatility Index in Acute and Chronic Pulmonary Embolism

Résumé fourni par la source

Background and Objectives: The pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) is an emerging marker of right ventricular (RV) injury but has not been well investigated in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). We aimed to investigate its discriminatory capabilities and ability to detect therapeutic effects in acute PE and CTEPH. Materials and Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data from both experimental studies of autologous PE and human studies of acute PE and CTEPH. PAPi was calculated and compared in (1) PE versus sham and (2) before and after interventions aimed at reducing RV afterload in PE and CTEPH. The correlations between PAPi, cardiac output, and RV to pulmonary artery coupling were investigated. Results: PAPi did not differ between animals with acute PE versus sham, nor was it affected by clot burden (p = 0.673) or at a 30-day follow-up (p = 0.242). Pulmonary vasodilatation with oxygen was associated with a reduction in PAPi (4.9 [3.7–7.8] vs. 4.0 [3.2–5.6], p = 0.016), whereas positive inotropes increased PAPi in the experimental PE. In humans, PAPi did not change consistently with interventions. Balloon pulmonary angioplasty did not significantly increase PAPi (6.5 [4.3–10.7] vs. 9.8 [6.8–14.2], p = 0.1) in patients with CTEPH, and a non-significant reduction in PAPi (4.3 ± 1.6 vs. 3.3 ± 1.2, p = 0.074) was observed in patients with acute PE who received sildenafil. PAPi did not correlate well with cardiac output or measures of RV to pulmonary artery coupling in either species. Conclusions: PAPi did not detect acute, experimental PE or changes as a result of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamically stable acute PE or CTEPH. However, it did change with pharmacological interventions in the experimental PE. Further research should establish its utility in detecting and monitoring RV injury in different clinical phenotypes of acute PE and CTEPH.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.