AIM: The end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (ESPVR) constructed from multiple pressure-volume (PV) loops acquired during load intervention is an established method to asses left ventricular (LV) contractility. We tested the accuracy of simplified single-beat (SB) ESPVR estimation in patients with severe heart failure. METHODS: Nineteen heart failure patients (NYHA III-IV) scheduled for surgical ventricular restoration and/or restrictive mitral annuloplasty and 12 patients with normal LV function scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting were included. PV signals were obtained before and after cardiac surgery by pressure-conductance catheters and gradual pre-load reductions by vena cava occlusion (VCO). The SB method was applied to the first beat of the VCO run. Accuracy was quantified by the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) between ESPVR(SB) and gold-standard ESPVR(VCO). In addition, we compared slopes (E(ES)) and intercepts (end-systolic volume at multiple pressure levels (70-100 mmHg: ESV(70)-ESV(100)) of ESPVR(SB) vs. ESPVR(VCO) by Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: RMSE was 1.7 + or - 1.0 mmHg and was not significantly different between groups and not dependent on end-diastolic volume, indicating equal, high accuracy over a wide volume range. SB-predicted E(ES) had a bias of -0.39 mmHg mL(-1) and limits of agreement (LoA) -2.0 to +1.2 mmHg mL(-1). SB-predicted ESVs at each pressure level showed small bias (range: -10.8 to +9.4 mL) and narrow LoA. Two-way anova indicated that differences between groups were not dependent on the method. CONCLUSION: Our findings, obtained in hearts spanning a wide range of sizes and conditions, support the use of the SB method. This method ultimately facilitates less invasive ESPVR estimation, particularly when coupled with emerging noninvasive techniques to measure LV pressures and volumes.
AIM: The end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (ESPVR) constructed from multiple pressure-volume (PV) loops acquired during load intervention is an established method to asses left ventricular (LV) contractility. We tested the accuracy of simplified single-beat (SB) ESPVR estimation in patients with severe heart failure. METHODS: Nineteen heart failurepatients (NYHA III-IV) scheduled for surgical ventricular restoration and/or restrictive mitral annuloplasty and 12 patients with normal LV function scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting were included. PV signals were obtained before and after cardiac surgery by pressure-conductance catheters and gradual pre-load reductions by vena cava occlusion (VCO). The SB method was applied to the first beat of the VCO run. Accuracy was quantified by the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) between ESPVR(SB) and gold-standard ESPVR(VCO). In addition, we compared slopes (E(ES)) and intercepts (end-systolic volume at multiple pressure levels (70-100 mmHg: ESV(70)-ESV(100)) of ESPVR(SB) vs. ESPVR(VCO) by Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: RMSE was 1.7 + or - 1.0 mmHg and was not significantly different between groups and not dependent on end-diastolic volume, indicating equal, high accuracy over a wide volume range. SB-predicted E(ES) had a bias of -0.39 mmHg mL(-1) and limits of agreement (LoA) -2.0 to +1.2 mmHg mL(-1). SB-predicted ESVs at each pressure level showed small bias (range: -10.8 to +9.4 mL) and narrow LoA. Two-way anova indicated that differences between groups were not dependent on the method. CONCLUSION: Our findings, obtained in hearts spanning a wide range of sizes and conditions, support the use of the SB method. This method ultimately facilitates less invasive ESPVR estimation, particularly when coupled with emerging noninvasive techniques to measure LV pressures and volumes.
Authors: Max E Godfrey; Rahul H Rathod; Ellen Keenan; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Andrew J Powell; Tal Geva; Ashwin Prakash Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Navin K Kapur; Lara Reyelt; Paige Crowley; Lauren Richey; John McCarthy; Shiva Annamalai; Sarah Newman; Lena Jorde; Sina Forotuanjazi; Allen Razavi; Tim Lenihan; Daniel Burkhoff; Richard H Karas Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: David Stevenson; James Revie; J Geoffrey Chase; Christopher E Hann; Geoffrey M Shaw; Bernard Lambermont; Alexandre Ghuysen; Philippe Kolh; Thomas Desaive Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: Michael I Brener; Amirali Masoumi; Vivian G Ng; Khodr Tello; Marcelo B Bastos; William K Cornwell; Steven Hsu; Ryan J Tedford; Philipp Lurz; Karl-Philipp Rommel; Karl-Patrik Kresoja; Sherif F Nagueh; Manreet K Kanwar; Navin K Kapur; Gurumurthy Hiremath; Mohammad Sarraf; Antoon J M Van Den Enden; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Paul M Heerdt; Rebecca T Hahn; Susheel K Kodali; Gabriel T Sayer; Nir Uriel; Daniel Burkhoff Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Jan-Christian Reil; Gert-Hinrich Reil; Árpád Kovács; Vasco Sequeira; Mark T Waddingham; Maria Lodi; Melissa Herwig; Shahrooz Ghaderi; Michael M Kreusser; Zoltán Papp; Niels Voigt; Dobromir Dobrev; Svenja Meyhöfer; Harald F Langer; Lars S Maier; Dominik Linz; Andreas Mügge; Mathias Hohl; Paul Steendijk; Nazha Hamdani Journal: J Physiol Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Shahryar M Chowdhury; Ryan J Butts; Anthony M Hlavacek; Carolyn L Taylor; Karen S Chessa; Varsha M Bandisode; Girish S Shirali; Arni Nutting; G Hamilton Baker Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: David Stevenson; James Revie; J Geoffrey Chase; Christopher E Hann; Geoffrey M Shaw; Bernard Lambermont; Alexandre Ghuysen; Philippe Kolh; Thomas Desaive Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 2.819