Literature DB >> 16172285

Doppler-derived ejection intraventricular pressure gradients provide a reliable assessment of left ventricular systolic chamber function.

Raquel Yotti1, Javier Bermejo, M Mar Desco, J Carlos Antoranz, José Luis Rojo-Alvarez, Cristina Cortina, Carmen Allué, Hugo Rodríguez-Abella, Mar Moreno, Miguel A García-Fernández.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ejection intraventricular pressure gradients are caused by the systolic force developed by the left ventricle (LV). By postprocessing color Doppler M-mode (CDMM) images, we can measure noninvasively the ejection intraventricular pressure difference (EIVPD) between the LV apex and the outflow tract. This study was designed to assess the value of Doppler-derived EIVPDs as noninvasive indices of systolic chamber function. METHODS AND
RESULTS: CDMM images and pressure-volume (conductance) signals were simultaneously acquired in 9 minipigs undergoing pharmacological interventions and acute ischemia. Inertial, convective, and total EIVPD curves were calculated from CDMM recordings. Peak EIVPD closely correlated with indices of systolic function based on the pressure-volume relationship: peak elastance (within-animal R=0.98; between-animals R=0.99), preload recruitable stroke work (within-animal R=0.81; between-animals R=0.86), and peak of the first derivative of pressure corrected for end-diastolic volume (within-animal R=0.88; between-animals R=0.91). The correlation of peak inertial EIVPD with these indices was also high (all R>0.75). Load dependence of EIVPDs was studied in another 5 animals in which consecutive beats obtained during load manipulation were analyzed. During caval occlusion (40% EDV reduction), dP/dtmax, ejection fraction, and stroke volume significantly changed, whereas peak EIVPD remained constant. Aortic occlusion (40% peak LV pressure increase) significantly modified dP/dtmax, ejection fraction, and stroke volume; a nearly significant trend toward decreasing peak EIVPD was observed (P=0.06), whereas inertial EIVPD was unchanged (P=0.6). EIVPD beat-to-beat and interobserver variabilities were 2+/-12% and 5+/-11%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Doppler-derived EIVPDs provide quantitative, reproducible, and relatively load-independent indices of global systolic chamber function that correlate closely with currently available reference methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16172285     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.485128

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  15 in total

1.  Validation of noninvasive indices of global systolic function in patients with normal and abnormal loading conditions: a simultaneous echocardiography pressure-volume catheterization study.

Authors:  Raquel Yotti; Javier Bermejo; Yolanda Benito; Ricardo Sanz-Ruiz; Cristina Ripoll; Pablo Martínez-Legazpi; Candelas Pérez del Villar; Jaime Elízaga; Ana González-Mansilla; Alicia Barrio; Rafael Bañares; Francisco Fernández-Avilés
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 7.792

2.  The role of elastic restoring forces in right-ventricular filling.

Authors:  Candelas Pérez Del Villar; Javier Bermejo; Daniel Rodríguez-Pérez; Pablo Martínez-Legazpi; Yolanda Benito; J Carlos Antoranz; M Mar Desco; Juan E Ortuño; Alicia Barrio; Teresa Mombiela; Raquel Yotti; Maria J Ledesma-Carbayo; Juan C Del Álamo; Francisco Fernández-Avilés
Journal:  Cardiovasc Res       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 10.787

Review 3.  Comparison of Echocardiography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance, and Computed Tomographic Imaging for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Myocardial Function: Part 1 (Global Assessment).

Authors:  Menhel Kinno; Prashant Nagpal; Stephen Horgan; Alfonso H Waller
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Assessment of methodologies to calculate intraventricular pressure differences in computational models and patients.

Authors:  Francisco J Londono-Hoyos; Abigail Swillens; Joris Van Cauwenberge; Brett Meyers; Maheswara Reddy Koppula; Pavlos Vlachos; Julio A Chirinos; Patrick Segers
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  MRI Assessment of Diastolic and Systolic Intraventricular Pressure Gradients in Heart Failure.

Authors:  Snigdha Jain; Francisco J Londono; Patrick Segers; Thierry C Gillebert; Marc De Buyzere; Julio A Chirinos
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2016-02

6.  Effects of Individual and Coexisting Diabetes and Cardiomyopathy on Diastolic Function in Rats (Rattus norvegicus domestica).

Authors:  Pitipat Kitpipatkun; Akira Yairo; Konosuke Kato; Katsuhiro Matsuura; Danfu Ma; Seijirow Goya; Akiko Uemura; Ken Takahashi; Ryou Tanaka
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 0.982

7.  Right and left ventricular diastolic flow field: why are measured intraventricular pressure gradients small?

Authors:  Ares Pasipoularides
Journal:  Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed)       Date:  2012-11-02

8.  Recent advances in the application of computational mechanics to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Juan C Del Alamo; Alison L Marsden; Juan C Lasheras
Journal:  Rev Esp Cardiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.753

9.  Non-invasive intraventricular pressure differences estimated with cardiac MRI in subjects without heart failure and with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Authors:  Francisco Londono-Hoyos; Patrick Segers; Zeba Hashmath; Garrett Oldland; Maheshwara Reddy Koppula; Khuzaima Javaid; Rachana Miller; Rushikkumar Bhuva; Izzah Vasim; Ali Tariq; Walter Witschey; Scott Akers; Julio Alonso Chirinos
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2019-10-09

10.  Nonconvective forces: a critical and often ignored component in the echocardiographic assessment of transvalvular pressure gradients.

Authors:  Michael S Firstenberg; Erik E Abel; Thomas J Papadimos; Ravi S Tripathi
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 1.866

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.