Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pvr’

PH is an important clinical cardio-pulmonary entity , which we confront day to day. Though the prevalence of PH in a community is just 1 % (25 times less than systemic hypertension) it deserves a special place as the diagnosis is more complex and outcome is often adverse.

The defining criteria , the classification, and grading of PH has always been a difficult and dynamic academic task .Right from WHO’s 1974 definition, we have 7 global symposiums , last one happened few months ago, in July 2024 in Barcelona.

We have made rapid strides in all aspects of PH right from molecular , genetic , imaging and therpeutics. Still, there is one important issue that has been overlooked for quiet some long. The concept of fitting PH in 5 groups based on etiology, though appear to simplify things, there is a significant flaw.

The overlaps in etiology

1.The group 1 contains the famous , (now obsolete entity of primary pulmonary hypertension) Idiopathic PH , meaning that we don’t know the cause of it or we have excluded all known causes. Meanwhile, group 5 also has set of conditions of PH of unknown or unclear etiology. So, a IPH of group one can migrate to either group 4 or group 5 or vice versa.

2.PH due to congenital heart disease can be in both Group 1 and 3

3.If you take PH due to some of the connective tissue order, I am sure, it can fall into any of the 5 groups

Suggestions for the next PH working group

It is desirable that the next working group should acknowledge existence of inter and intra group overlaps of PH in a more clear manner. Either we should take away the groupism or the current definition of group 5 need to be more elaborate . It says multi-factorial. Instead we can try to find what are the groups it is likely to have an overlap. Should we need another a sixth group ? GO-PH (Group overlapping PH)

There can also be a place for combined etiological-hemodyanmic classification . (Example : Group 1 .Pre capillary .Group 1 Intra-capillary as in PVOD) . CTEPH though essentially is a precap PH, the risk factors of CTEPH and HFpEF can be shared one, making it combined pre and post cap PH a distinct possibility. )

Final message

While the problem of groupism in PH exists, the issue of highest importance in PH is something different. This is more philosophical . We need to be very clear what we mean by Idiopathic. As physicians, we must realize how relative this terminology is . What is idiopathic in your hospital, (However big you are) may turn out to be a missed case of mixed connective tissue disorder or silent CTEPH detected only by V/Q scan or a dual energy CT or a rare case of PVOD by judiciously reading a pulmonary angiogram in a dedicated PH center.

*Also we must recall, statistically up to 80% of PH is due to left heart (This HFpEF stuff has jacked this incidence still more ) and lung disease. Our efforts and resources should be used judiciously for optimal diagnosis and management of common conditions first.

Read Full Post »

Calculating the pulmonary vascular  resistance (PVR)  has been a  big head ache for all those involved in pediatric and (for many )in adult cardiology as well  . The complex formulas , the delicate  oximeter samples, the catheters, a sick child , an arrhythmia prone right ventricle , restless staff  nurses , and  finally the mathematics  !  all make it a dreaded exercise .

Echo is a great physiological tool  . . . It is now been used  over 50 years . It is our earnest belief ,   Doppler can measure the flow and pressure any where within the heart   however dynamic  the chambers may be !

Then ,why can’t  we have a simple formula  by  this  non invasive method  to calculate PVR  ?

Yes ,  Dr Abbas et all  from the desert hospital  of Arizona  raised  this question and  reported a new equation to calculate PVR.

Their  hypothesis is as simple as this . . .

  • Pressure     =    Resistance X Flow
  • Resistance = Pressure /Flow

Pulmonary vascular resistance = PA Pressure/PA FLOW

Substitute PA pressure with TR jet

Substitute PA flow by   RVOT VTI (  Velocity time integral )

And  we  get

PVR = TR Jet velocity/ RVOT VTI x  10

This  is the simplest way to arrive at PVR at the bedside .

An example

Is it validated ?

Yes .

Then,why it is not being followed widely ?

It is  a  too  simple  method to  use   !  That  is  the biggest excuse ! We are tuned  to  think  ,  a  complex parameter can not be measured in a  simple manner  .  Any thing simple must be  wrong !

But the reality is  . . .

Cath calculations are   much more  complex with so many variables   which  can  get terribly wrong .

The irony  about this  hypothetical  science of PVR is ,  we do not know  which is  gold the standard ?   In fact , none can be  a standard .  So ,  to label PVR  derived by echo ,  as an   inferior modality  can not be accepted  .It is all the more funny ,  as  we are  trying to  define a new  formula    with  the help of   flawed and battered   parameter  namely  the cath derived PVR .

Final message

Abbas’s  formula  is  indeed a  realistic way of arriving at PVR by echocardiogram. If only we measure it routinely  /serially in as many patients as we can , a new data base  will  be created .Which can later be  proven as a fact.It is suggested every cath lab should try to validate this formula.

Link to full text article : Courtesy of JACC

Abbas AE, Fortuin FD, Schiller NB, Appleton CP, Moreno CA, Lester SJ. A simple method for noninvasive estimation of pulmonary vascular resistance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1021-7.

Read Full Post »