Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41081222›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025

Clinical research on echocardiographic screening for pulmonary hypertension: TRV >2.8 m/s and mPAP >20 mmHg.

Danmin Qin, Shuting Yang, Liwen Lin, Dongyuan Lin, Yantong Cai, Fangqi Li, Jiajia Zhou, Jiapeng Wang, Jiayi Lin, Meiyan Luo and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Danmin Qin *Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Shuting Yang *Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Liwen Lin *The Second Clinical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Dongyuan LinDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Yantong CaiDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Fangqi LiDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Jiajia ZhouThe Second Clinical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiapeng WangThe Second Clinical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiayi LinThe Second Clinical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Meiyan LuoThe Second Clinical College, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Caiqin ZhengDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaofeng WuDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases/National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, Guangzhou, China.
Yuanmei ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.
Wenliang GuoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases/National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, Guangzhou, China.
Shangwei DingDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9477-8758

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2022, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) revised the diagnostic criteria for pulmonary hypertension (PH) from mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≥25 mmHg to >20 mmHg. However, the echocardiographic standards [the tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) >2.8 m/s] have not been updated. This study aims to optimize the reference value of TRV, and evaluate the discriminatory efficacy of TRV in pulmonary artery pressure grading. Methods: Patients suspected of having PH underwent both ultrasound (US) and right heart catheterization (RHC) examinations. The TRV and tricuspid regurgitant pressure gradient (ΔPTR) were measured via US. Right atrial pressure (RAP) was estimated via US by related parameters of the inferior vena cava. Subsequently, the systolic pulmonary artery pressure measured by ultrasound (US-sPAP) was equivalent to RAP + ΔPTR. RHC recorded the systolic pulmonary artery pressure (RHC-sPAP) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (RHC-mPAP). The reference standards for TRV and US-sPAP were established using RHC-mPAP >20 mmHg or RHC-mPAP ≥25 mmHg as diagnostic criteria for PH, respectively. Patients were classified into mild (20 mmHg < mPAP ≤30 mmHg), moderate (30 mmHg < mPAP ≤40 mmHg), and severe (mPAP >40 mmHg) and the reference criteria for TRV and US-sPAP were then determined accordingly. Results: A total of 257 patients were included in this study, comprising 218 patients with mPAP >20 mmHg and 192 patients with mPAP ≥25 mmHg. There was no statistically significant difference between US-sPAP and RHC-sPAP (P=0.969), and the correlation was significant (r=0.793, P<0.001). Bland Altman analysis showed high consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.762). When mPAP >20 mmHg was used as the threshold for diagnosing PH, the optimal cut-off values for US-sPAP, TRV, and RHC-sPAP were 37 mmHg, 2.9 m/s, and 41 mmHg, respectively [areas under the curve (AUCs) 0.926, 0.936, 0.981, accuracies 89.9%, 89.5%, 90.3%]. The cut-off values for distinguishing mild/moderate elevation of mPAP were 60 mmHg, 3.7 m/s, and 57 mmHg, respectively (AUC 0.903, 0.900, 0.988, accuracy 81.3%, 80.9%, 94.2%). The cut-off values for distinguishing moderate/severe elevation were 68 mmHg, 4.0 m/s, and 72 mmHg (AUC 0.881, 0.882, 0.971, accuracy 81.3%, 82.9%, 91.1%), respectively. When mPAP ≥25 mmHg was used as the diagnostic threshold for PH, the AUCs for US-sPAP, TRV, and RHC-sPAP were 0.931, 0.933, and 0.990, respectively, with cut-off values of 45 mmHg, 3.4 m/s, and 43 mmHg, and accuracies of 86.8%, 80.5%, and 96.5%. Conclusions: Utilizing a TRV threshold of >2.8 m/s for echocardiographic assessment aligns more closely with the 2022 guidelines (mPAP >20 mmHg) but demonstrates poor correlation with the 2015 guidelines (mPAP ≥25 mmHg). Additionally, US-sPAP ≥37 mmHg can serve as a reliable criterion for assessing PH.

Indexed as

echocardiographyPulmonary hypertension (PH)tricuspid regurgitation (TR)

Identifiers

PMID41081222
PMCPMC12514695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.