2022
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195749
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Echocardiographic Probability of Pulmonary Hypertension in Cardiac Surgery Patients—Occurrence and Association with Respiratory Adverse Events—An Observational Prospective Single-Center Study

Abstract: Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an independent risk factor of increased morbidity and mortality in cardiac surgery patients (CS). The most common cause underlying PH is left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction. This study aimed to evaluate the echocardiographic probability of PH in patients undergoing CS and its correlation with postoperative respiratory adverse events (RAE). Methods: The echocardiographic probability of PH and its correlation with LV diastolic dysfunction was assessed in 56 cons… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Increased RVSP and sPAP are characteristic of PH. In the first part of our study, published in 2022, we observed high or moderate echocardiographic probability of PH in 51.7% (n = 29) of our patients, from which 19 presented diastolic dysfunction stage II or III [30]. The impact of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiographic signs of elevated RV pressure and sPAP explains the differences in EuroScore II in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%
“…Increased RVSP and sPAP are characteristic of PH. In the first part of our study, published in 2022, we observed high or moderate echocardiographic probability of PH in 51.7% (n = 29) of our patients, from which 19 presented diastolic dysfunction stage II or III [30]. The impact of diastolic dysfunction on echocardiographic signs of elevated RV pressure and sPAP explains the differences in EuroScore II in our study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 51%