Assessing Correlation Between Thoracic Impedance and Remotely Monitored Pulmonary Artery Pressure in Chronic Systolic Heart Failure.

IF 1.4 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Ankita Aggarwal, Zubair Khan, Christian Machado, Marcel Zughaib
{"title":"Assessing Correlation Between Thoracic Impedance and Remotely Monitored Pulmonary Artery Pressure in Chronic Systolic Heart Failure.","authors":"Ankita Aggarwal,&nbsp;Zubair Khan,&nbsp;Christian Machado,&nbsp;Marcel Zughaib","doi":"10.14740/cr1447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure (HF) readmission continues to be a major health problem. Monitoring pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and thoracic impedance (TI) are the two modalities utilized for early identification of decompensation in HF patients. We aimed to assess the correlation between these two modalities in patients who simultaneously had both the devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with history of New York Heart Association class III systolic HF with a pre-implanted intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) capable of monitoring TI and pre-implanted CardioMEMs™ remote HF monitoring device were included. Hemodynamic data including TI and PAPs were measured at baseline and then weekly. Weekly percentage change was then calculated as: Weekly percentage change = (week 2 - week1)/week 1 × 100. Variability between the methods was expressed by Bland-Altman analysis. Significance was determined as a P-value < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant correlation between the assessed weekly percentage changes in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PAdP) and TI measurements (r = -0.180, P = 0.065). Using Bland-Altman analytic methods, both methods had no significant difference in agreement (0.011±0.094%, P = 0.215). With the linear regression model applied for Bland-Altman analysis, the two methods appeared to have proportional bias without agreement (unstandardized beta-coefficient of 1.91, t 22.9, P ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrated that variations exist between measurement of PAdP and TI; however, there is no significant correlation between weekly variations between them.</p>","PeriodicalId":9424,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology Research","volume":"14 1","pages":"32-37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/28/11/cr-14-032.PMC9990537.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) readmission continues to be a major health problem. Monitoring pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and thoracic impedance (TI) are the two modalities utilized for early identification of decompensation in HF patients. We aimed to assess the correlation between these two modalities in patients who simultaneously had both the devices.

Methods: Patients with history of New York Heart Association class III systolic HF with a pre-implanted intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) capable of monitoring TI and pre-implanted CardioMEMs™ remote HF monitoring device were included. Hemodynamic data including TI and PAPs were measured at baseline and then weekly. Weekly percentage change was then calculated as: Weekly percentage change = (week 2 - week1)/week 1 × 100. Variability between the methods was expressed by Bland-Altman analysis. Significance was determined as a P-value < 0.05.

Results: Nine patients met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant correlation between the assessed weekly percentage changes in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PAdP) and TI measurements (r = -0.180, P = 0.065). Using Bland-Altman analytic methods, both methods had no significant difference in agreement (0.011±0.094%, P = 0.215). With the linear regression model applied for Bland-Altman analysis, the two methods appeared to have proportional bias without agreement (unstandardized beta-coefficient of 1.91, t 22.9, P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that variations exist between measurement of PAdP and TI; however, there is no significant correlation between weekly variations between them.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估慢性收缩期心力衰竭患者胸阻抗与远程监测肺动脉压的相关性。
背景:心力衰竭(HF)再入院仍然是一个主要的健康问题。监测肺动脉压(PAP)和胸阻抗(TI)是早期识别HF患者代偿失代偿的两种方式。我们的目的是评估同时使用这两种设备的患者这两种方式之间的相关性。方法:纳入有纽约心脏协会III类收缩期心力衰竭病史的患者,并预先植入能够监测TI的心内除颤器(ICD)和预先植入CardioMEMs™远程心力衰竭监测装置。血流动力学数据包括TI和pap分别在基线和每周测量。每周变化百分比计算公式为:每周变化百分比=(第2周-第1周)/第1周× 100。用Bland-Altman分析表示方法间的可变性。以p值< 0.05判定显著性。结果:9例患者符合纳入标准。肺动脉舒张压(PAdP)的周变化百分比与TI测量值之间无显著相关性(r = -0.180, P = 0.065)。采用Bland-Altman分析方法,两种方法的一致性无显著差异(0.011±0.094%,P = 0.215)。使用线性回归模型进行Bland-Altman分析时,两种方法似乎存在比例偏差,但不一致(非标准化β系数为1.91,t 22.9, P≤0.001)。结论:我们的研究表明,PAdP和TI的测量存在差异;然而,他们之间的周变化之间没有显著的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cardiology Research
Cardiology Research CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Cardiology Research is an open access, peer-reviewed, international journal. All submissions relating to basic research and clinical practice of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine are in this journal''s scope. This journal focuses on publishing original research and observations in all cardiovascular medicine aspects. Manuscript types include original article, review, case report, short communication, book review, letter to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信