Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 24, 2025
Morphological and Functional Assessment of the Right Ventricle Using 3D Echocardiography
Published on: October 28, 2020
Prognostic value of the right ventricular ejection fraction using three-dimensional echocardiography: Systematic
Tetsuji Kitano1, Yosuke Nabeshima1, Yasufumi Nagata1
1Second Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Aims:
Three-dimensional echocardiography (3DE) is a robust method for measuring the right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction (EF), which is closely associated with outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (1) to examine the prognostic value of RVEF and (2) to compare its prognostic value with that of left ventricular (LV) EF and LV global longitudinal strain (GLS). We also performed individual patient data analysis to validate the results.
Methods And Results:
We searched articles reporting the prognostic value of RVEF. Hazard ratios (HR) were re-scaled using the within-study standard deviation (SD). To compare predictive values of RVEF and LVEF or LVGLS, the ratio of HR related to a 1-SD reduction of RVEF versus LVEF or LVGLS was calculated. Pooled HR of RVEF and pooled ratio of HR were analyzed in a random-effects model. Fifteen articles with 3,228 subjects were included. Pooled HR of a 1-SD reduction of RVEF was 2.54 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.15-3.00). In subgroup analysis, RVEF was significantly associated with outcome in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) (HR: 2.79, 95% CI: 2.04-3.82) and cardiovascular (CV) diseases (HR: 2.23, 95%CI: 1.76-2.83). In studies reporting HRs for both RVEF and LVEF or RVEF and LVGLS in the same cohort, RVEF had 1.8-fold greater prognostic power per 1-SD reduction than LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.81, 95%CI: 1.20-2.71), but had predictive value similar to that of LVGLS (ratio of HR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.91-1.31) and to LVEF in patients with reduced LVEF (ratio of HR: 1.34, 95%CI: 0.94-1.91). In individual patient data analysis (n = 1,142), RVEF < 45% was significantly associated with worse CV outcome (HR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.66-6.70), even in patients with reduced or preserved LVEF.
Conclusions:
The findings of this meta-analysis highlight and support the use of RVEF assessed by 3DE to predict CV outcomes in routine clinical practice in patients with CV diseases and in those with PAH.
