BACKGROUND:
Right Ventricular (RV) dysfunction has been introduced as a predictor of mortality in acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES:
This study aimed to investigate the effect of right coronary revascularization on systolic and diastolic RV dysfunction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:
This study was conducted on unstable angina patients who were candidate for elective Percutaneous Revascularization Intervention (PCI) on the right coronary artery. The participants were initially evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging prior to PCI and the RV function parameters were assessed. Echocardiography was repeated two months after PCI and the results were compared with baseline. Paired t-test was used to compare the pre- and post-procedural measurements. Besides, Pearson's correlation was used to find out the linear association between the RV function parameters and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF). P value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS:
This study was conducted on 30 patients (mean age = 60.00 ± 8.44 years; 24 [80%] males). In the pre-procedural echocardiography, 15 patients (50%) had normal RV function, 14 patients (46.7%) had grade-1 RV dysfunction, and only 1 patient (3.3%) had grade-2 RV dysfunction. Following PCI, however, all the patients had normal systolic and diastolic RV functions. Comparison of echocardiographic RV function parameters showed an improvement in both systolic and diastolic functional parameters of the RV. Nonetheless, no significant correlation was observed between these parameters and Left Ventricular (LV) function.

CONCLUSIONS:
A significant improvement was found in RV function, but not LV function, after right coronary PCI. Revascularization of the right coronary artery may be beneficial for the patients who suffer from RV failure due to ischemia.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
0% Article relates to my practice (0/0)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/0)
0% Level 2 (0/0)
0% Level 3 (0/0)
0% Level 4 (0/0)
0% Level 5 (0/0)