New 2022 ESC/ERS definition of pulmonary hypertension: can we rely on the same non-invasive echocardiographic parameters?

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction The hemodynamic definition of pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been updated, with lowering of the mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) threshold from 25 to 20 mmHg according to the new 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines. Although there is no single echocardiographic parameter that reliably informs about PH status, some of the echocardiographic parameters cut-offs remained the same, including a peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity (PTRV) >2.8m/s. The potential underdiagnosis of PH has not been evaluated. Objectives To evaluate the screening power of the standard echocardiographic parameters to detect PH according to the new guidelines and to establish new predictors. Methods A prospective registry of consecutive intermediate-high- and high-risk PE pts submitted to CDT in a single tertiary center was used. 3 months after the procedure, the patients were submitted to a right heart catheterization and echocardiogram to screen chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). According to new PH criteria, patients were divided in two groups, and echocardiographic parameters were analyzed regarding their predictive power. A ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate optimal cut-offs in predicting PH according the new guidelines. Results 17 pts (60% women, mean age 59 ± 16 years) were included. Among these, 7 pts (41,2%) were diagnosed with pre-capillary PH by RHC at 3 months of follow-up. Among echocardiographic parameters, PTRV (p 0.015), presence of tricuspid regurgitation (0.034) and right ventricle-pulmonary artery (RV-PA) coupling (p 0.041) were significantly different between groups (Fig 1 A). Other parameters, such as right ventricle dilation (p 0.849), TAPSE (p 0.100), annular tricuspid s’ velocity (p 0.646), right ventricle outflow tract acceleration time (p 0.229) and the presence of pericardial effusion (p 0.849) did not show significant differences. Regarding the PTRV, a ROC curve analysis revealed an PTRV optimal cut-off of 2.6 m/s (pressure gradient 27mmHg) in our population (AUC 0.911, p 0.030, Sn 71.4%, Sp 100%), compared to the conventional cut-off of 2.8 m/s (pressure gradient 31 mmHg) (p 0.470, Sn 28.6%, Sp 100%). The use of PTRV > 2.6 m/s allows to reduce false negatives without losing specificity (Fig 1 B, C and D). Conclusion With the recent update in PH criteria, the use of the conventional PTRV cut-off leads to a significant underdiagnosis in our population. Lowering the PTRV threshold seems to increase sensitivity, without losing specificity. Other standard echocardiographic parameters did not seem to predict accurately the presence of PH.