ArticleOpen heart2026
Predictive value of simple echocardiographic parameters for screening pulmonary hypertension under the revised definition: a study for general hospitals.
Article in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current guideline recommends a peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) ≥2.9 m/s on echocardiography for pulmonary hypertension (PH) screening; however, this threshold was based on the previous PH definition (mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) ≥25 mm Hg) and derived largely from PH referral centres.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 755 patients who underwent both transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterisation at two general hospitals. The discrimination of peak TRV and estimated right atrial pressure (eRAP), derived from inferior vena cava diameter and respiratory variation, for screening for PH was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Optimal cut-off values were determined with the Youden Index.
resultsThe c-statistic for peak TRV in detecting PH was 0.82 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.85). An optimal cut-off of 2.7 m/s provided higher sensitivity (72%) than the conventional 2.9 m/s threshold (60%) while maintaining high specificity (82%). In 681 patients with available TRV and eRAP data, adding eRAP improved discrimination compared with TRV alone (c-statistic 0.83 vs 0.80; net reclassification improvement=0.14, p=0.002). eRAP ≥5 mm Hg was associated with a higher risk of PH, and the combination of elevated TRV and eRAP yielded the strongest association.
conclusionFor screening under the revised PH definition, a peak TRV of 2.7 m/s is suggested as the optimal cut-off. Although TRV alone showed good discriminative performance, combining it with eRAP further improved diagnostic accuracy using simple echocardiographic measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.