2013
DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(13)61229-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imaging Predictors of Clinical Deterioration in Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Prospective Two-Year Study With 2d and 3d Echocardiography and CMR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are several notable differences in patient selection compared to our study, which help explaining the difference in findings. 43,44 Limitations of our study are that this was an observational study, and our single-center study population is small. 42 We have clinically followed patients for a further 8.3 months and observed that remodeling of RV volumes was associated with clinical worsening.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are several notable differences in patient selection compared to our study, which help explaining the difference in findings. 43,44 Limitations of our study are that this was an observational study, and our single-center study population is small. 42 We have clinically followed patients for a further 8.3 months and observed that remodeling of RV volumes was associated with clinical worsening.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…van Wolferen et al 8 also showed that RV dilatation independently predicted outcome during a follow-up of 32 months, and other imaging studies have identified RV dilatation as a marker for poor prognosis in IPAH as well. 43,44 Limitations of our study are that this was an observational study, and our single-center study population is small. Larger studies are needed, in particular in CTD-associated PAH to better define right ventricular geometry in this unique subpopulation within the PAH subgroup.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%