ePLAR - The echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio - A novel non-invasive parameter to differentiate pre-capillary and post-capillary pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Right heart catheterisation is the gold-standard for differentiating pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension (high mean pulmonary artery pressure, normal pulmonary wedge pressure) from post-capillary physiology (elevated pulmonary wedge pressure). The new non-invasive parameter, ePLAR (echocardiographic Pulmonary to Left Atrial Ratio) is calculated from the maximum tricuspid regurgitation continuous wave Doppler velocity (m/s) divided by the transmitral E-wave:septal mitral annular Doppler Tissue Imaging e'-wave ratio (TRVmax/E:e'). METHODS: Pulmonary hypertension patients (mean pulmonary artery pressure>25mmHg, n=133, 66 male, average 65.0±16.8years) were classified by right heart catheterisation as pre-capillary or post-capillary [subdivided into isolated post-capillary (diastolic pulmonary gradient <7mmHg) or combined pre- and post-capillary cases]. The ePLAR values of these groups were compared to each other and to a population sample of 16,356 population reference echocardiograms. RESULTS: ePLAR values for the normal reference population of 16,356 echocardiograms (age 56±16.6years) were 0.30±0.09m/s. Pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension patients (n=35, 26 male, PAPsys 63.9±16.6mmHg, PAPdiast 24.1±7.3mmHg, PAPmean 37.9±9.4mmHg, PCWP 10.6±2.7mmHg) had significantly higher ePLAR values than post-capillary cases (n=98, 40 male, PAPsys 59.9±17.6mmHg, PAPdiast 25.0±7.4mmHg, PAPmean 38.1±9.8mmHg, PCWP 23.5±6.4mmHg)-ePLAR 0.44±0.22m/s vs 0.20±0.11m/s (p<0.001). ePLAR values were significantly lower in isolated post-capillary pulmonary hypertension than in combined pre- and post-capillary cases (0.18±0.08m/s vs 0.28±0.18m/s, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ePLAR is a simple echocardiographic parameter which can accurately differentiate the smaller subset of patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension from the more common post-capillary aetiology. The use of this easily obtained echocardiographic parameter has the potential to enhance non-invasive triage of patients for specific pulmonary vasodilator therapy.

Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the association of health insurance status on the provision of guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia. METHODS: Consecutive hospitalisations of suspected ACS from 14 to 27 May 2012 enrolled in the Snapshot study of Australian and New Zealand patients were evaluated. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of patient risk and insurance status with the receipt of care. RESULTS: In all, 3391 patients with suspected ACS from 247 hospitals (23 private) were enrolled in the present study. One-third of patients declared private insurance coverage; of these, 27.9% (304/1088) presented to private facilities. Compared with public patients, privately insured patients were more likely to undergo in-patient echocardiography and receive early angiography; furthermore, in those with a discharge diagnosis of ACS, there was a higher rate of revascularisation (P < 0.001). Each of these attracts potential fee-for-service. In contrast, proportionately fewer privately insured ACS patients were discharged on selected guideline therapies and were referred to a secondary prevention program (P = 0.056), neither of which directly attracts a fee. Typically, as GRACE (the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score rose, so did the level of ACS care; however, propensity-adjusted analyses showed lower in-hospital adverse events among the insured group (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.88; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Fee-for-service reimbursement may explain differences in the provision of selected guideline-advocated components of ACS care between privately insured and public patients.