Diagnostic efficacy of ECG-derived ventricular gradient for the detection of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Application of the chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) rule out criteria (manual electrocardiogram [ECG] reading and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NTproBNP] test) can rule out CTEPH in pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with persistent dyspnea (InShape II algorithm). Increased pulmonary pressure may also be identified using automated ECG-derived ventricular gradient optimized for right ventricular pressure overload (VG-RVPO). A predefined analysis of the InShape II study was performed. The diagnostic performance of the VG-RVPO for the detection of CTEPH and the incremental diagnostic value of the VG-RVPO as new rule-out criteria in the InShape II algorithm were evaluated. 60 patients were included; 5 (8.3%) were ultimately diagnosed with CTEPH. The mean baseline VG-RVPO (at time of PE diagnosis) was −18.12 mV·ms for CTEPH patients and − 21.57 mV·ms for non-CTEPH patients (mean difference 3.46 mV·ms [95%CI −29.03 to 35.94]). The VG-RVPO (after 3–6 months follow-up) normalized in patients with and without CTEPH, without a clear between-group difference (mean Δ VG-RVPO of −8.68 and − 8.42 mV·ms respectively; mean difference of −0.25 mV·ms, [95%CI −12.94 to 12.44]). The overall predictive accuracy of baseline VG-RVPO, follow-up RVPO and Δ VG-RVPO for CTEPH was moderate to poor (ROC AUC 0.611, 0.514 and 0.539, respectively). Up to 76% of the required echocardiograms could have been avoided with VG-RVPO criteria replacing the InShape II rule-out criteria, however at cost of missing up to 80% of the CTEPH diagnoses. We could not demonstrate (additional) diagnostic value of VG-RVPO as standalone test or as on top of the InShape II algorithm. •The VG-RVPO improved over time after acute PE for CTEPH and non-CTEPH patients.•The VG-RVPO as a standalone test does not accurately discriminate CTEPH from non-CTEPH patients.•Additional diagnostic value of VG-RVPO on top of the InShape II algorithm could not be shown.•Our findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating due to low sample size.