You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 5, Issue 1
  • Comparison of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion with fractional area change for the evaluation of right ventricular systolic function: a meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Meta-analysis
Original research article
Comparison of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion with fractional area change for the evaluation of right ventricular systolic function: a meta-analysis
  1. Justin Z Lee1,
  2. See-Wei Low2,
  3. Ahmed K Pasha3,
  4. Carol L Howe4,
  5. Kwan S Lee5 and
  6. Prakash G Suryanarayana5
  1. 1 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  2. 2 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  3. 3 Division of Hospital Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, Minnesota, USA
  4. 4 Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  5. 5 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kwan S Lee, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; klee{at}shc.arizona.edu

Abstract

Background Accurate determination of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) is challenging because of the unique geometry of the right ventricle. Tricuspidannular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and fractional area change (FAC) are commonly used echocardiographic quantitative estimates of RV function. Cardiac MRI (CMRI) has emerged as the gold standard for assessment of RVEF. We sought to summarise the available data on correlation of TAPSE and FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF and to compare their accuracy.

Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library databases for studies that assessed the correlation of TAPSE or FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF. Data from each study selected were pooled and analysed to compare the correlation coefficient of TAPSE and FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with pulmonary hypertension.

Results Analysis of data from 17 studies with a total of 1280 patients revealed that FAC had a higher correlation with CMRI-derived RVEF compared with TAPSE (0.56vs0.40, P=0.018). In patients with pulmonary hypertension, there was no statistical difference in the mean correlation coefficient of FAC and TAPSE to CMR (0.57vs0.46, P=0.16).

Conclusions FAC provides a more accurate estimate of RV systolic function (RVSF) compared with TAPSE. Adoption of FAC as a routine tool for the assessment of RVSF should be considered, especially since it is also an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Further studies will be needed to compare other methods of echocardiographic measurement of RV function.

  • transthoracic
  • systolic dysfunction
  • echocardiography

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2017-000667

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JZL: drafting of manuscript, literature screening and statistical analysis. SWL: collection of data and literature screening. AKP: drafting of manuscript and literature screening. CLH: literature search. KSL: revising critically for important intellectual content. PGS: drafting of manuscript, revising critically for important intellectual content and final approval of manuscript submitted.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.