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

Responses

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
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 10 November 2018
    The long and the short of it
    • Guy Lloyd, Consultant Cardiologist Barts Heart Centre

    Lee et al in trying to define the accuracy of one method illustrate the huge weakness in echo vs MRI comparative data. First and foremost neither FAC or TAPSE correlated that well with RVEF ( FAC only slightly better) although statistically significant this difference is clinically of negligible importance. Secondly in assuming that MRI provides a gold standard for RVEF. As with echo there are strengths and weaknesses of MRI. On is the rather lower sensitivity to long axis abnormalities because ventricular volumes are usually defined using the short axis plane. So a reduced correlation between a purely long axis technique, a moderate correlation with a technique that has both long and short axis components and one which is defined using predominantly radial function is entirely to be expected. Long axis dysfunction is usually the first sign of ventricular deterioration with short axis hyperactivity to compensate - exactly the example cited post cardiac surgery. Finally in their conclusions they state that FAC provides a better guide to RV systolic function. This is not justified - what it does do is provide a slightly better estimate of RVEF -these two are not synonymous. So as there are no clinical correlates - prognosis, symptoms, exercise performance, hospitalisations , the comparison between the techniques tells us nothing we did not already know - all methods of defining systolic function are different - we have not answered which one is best.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.