Objective: Heart failure (HF) management guided by implantable hemodynamic monitoring reduces hospitalization rates. Hemodynamic data from the CardioMEMS HF system includes device-averaged pulmonary artery pressures (PAP) and heart rate. Agreement of device-averaged values compared to the standard method of visual inspection of pressure waveforms at end-expiration is unknown. We evaluated the agreement between device-averaged and visually inspected end-expiratory PAP.
Approach: Twenty-one patients implanted with the CardioMEMS HF system were evaluated. Eight-hundred twenty-three PAP waveforms from the Merlin remote monitoring website were visually inspected and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) and pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) at end-expiration were recorded. Waveforms were evaluated for pressure variation (PV), defined as the difference between highest and lowest PASP measurement of ⩾20 mmHg. Bland-Altman analysis quantified differences between device-averaged and visually inspected waveforms.
Main Results: All patients were NYHA functional class III, mean age was 67 ± 15 years and 15 (71%) had AF. Bland-Altman analysis of all waveforms revealed a mean-difference in PADP of -1.4 mmHg, indicating that visually inspected values were higher than device-averaged values. For PV ⩾20 mmHg, this value increased to -2.8 mmHg. The mean-difference comparing waveforms from patients with or without AF was -1.3 and -1.6 mmHg, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were >50% wider for waveforms from patients with versus without AF (10.3 versus 6.7 mmHg).
Significance: There is good agreement between device-averaged and visually inspected waveforms when pressure variation is <20 mmHg and for patients without atrial fibrillation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/aa6edb | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!