OBJECTIVE: The effects of ventricular restraint level on left ventricular reverse remodeling are not known. We hypothesized that restraint level affects the degree of reverse remodeling and that restraint applied in an adjustable manner is superior to standard, nonadjustable restraint. METHODS: This study was performed in 2 parts using a model of chronic heart failure in the sheep. In part I, restraint was applied at control (0 mm Hg, n = 3), low (1.5 mm Hg, n = 3), and high (3.0 mm Hg, n = 3) levels with an adjustable and measurable ventricular restraint (AMVR) device. Restraint level was not altered throughout the 2-month treatment period. Serial restraint level measurements and transthoracic echocardiography were performed. In part II, restraint was applied with the AMVR device set at 3.0 mm Hg (n = 6) and adjusted periodically to maintain that level. This was compared with restraint applied in a standard, nonadjustable manner using a mesh wrap (n = 6). All subjects were followed up for 2 months with serial magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: In part I, there was greater and earlier reverse remodeling in the high restraint group. In both groups, the rate of reverse remodeling peaked and then declined as the measured restraint level decreased with progression of reverse remodeling. In part II, adjustable restraint resulted in greater reverse remodeling than standard restraint. Left ventricular end diastolic volume decreased by 12.7% (P = .005) with adjustable restraint and by 5.7% (P = .032) with standard restraint. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 18.9% (P = .014) and 14.4% (P < .001) with adjustable and standard restraint, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Restraint level affects the rate and degree of reverse remodeling and is an important determinant of therapy efficacy. Adjustable restraint is more effective than nonadjustable restraint in promoting reverse remodeling.
OBJECTIVE: The effects of ventricular restraint level on left ventricular reverse remodeling are not known. We hypothesized that restraint level affects the degree of reverse remodeling and that restraint applied in an adjustable manner is superior to standard, nonadjustable restraint. METHODS: This study was performed in 2 parts using a model of chronic heart failure in the sheep. In part I, restraint was applied at control (0 mm Hg, n = 3), low (1.5 mm Hg, n = 3), and high (3.0 mm Hg, n = 3) levels with an adjustable and measurable ventricular restraint (AMVR) device. Restraint level was not altered throughout the 2-month treatment period. Serial restraint level measurements and transthoracic echocardiography were performed. In part II, restraint was applied with the AMVR device set at 3.0 mm Hg (n = 6) and adjusted periodically to maintain that level. This was compared with restraint applied in a standard, nonadjustable manner using a mesh wrap (n = 6). All subjects were followed up for 2 months with serial magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: In part I, there was greater and earlier reverse remodeling in the high restraint group. In both groups, the rate of reverse remodeling peaked and then declined as the measured restraint level decreased with progression of reverse remodeling. In part II, adjustable restraint resulted in greater reverse remodeling than standard restraint. Left ventricular end diastolic volume decreased by 12.7% (P = .005) with adjustable restraint and by 5.7% (P = .032) with standard restraint. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 18.9% (P = .014) and 14.4% (P < .001) with adjustable and standard restraint, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Restraint level affects the rate and degree of reverse remodeling and is an important determinant of therapy efficacy. Adjustable restraint is more effective than nonadjustable restraint in promoting reverse remodeling.
Authors: Mehmet C Oz; Wolfgang F Konertz; Franz X Kleber; Friedrich W Mohr; Jan F Gummert; Jorg Ostermeyer; Michael Lass; Jai Raman; Michael A Acker; Nicholas Smedira Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: J M Power; J Raman; A Dornom; S J Farish; L M Burrell; A M Tonkin; B Buxton; C A Alferness Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Sina L Moainie; Joseph H Gorman; T Sloane Guy; Frank W Bowen; Benjamin M Jackson; Theodore Plappert; Navneet Narula; Martin G St John-Sutton; Jagat Narula; L Henry Edmunds; Robert C Gorman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: James J Pilla; Aaron S Blom; Daniel J Brockman; Victor A Ferrari; Qing Yuan; Michael A Acker Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Hani N Sabbah; Victor G Sharov; Ramesh C Gupta; Sudhish Mishra; Sharad Rastogi; Albertas I Undrovinas; Pervaiz A Chaudhry; Anastassia Todor; Takayuki Mishima; Elaine J Tanhehco; George Suzuki Journal: Circ Res Date: 2003-10-16 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Jeremy R McGarvey; Norihiro Kondo; Walter R T Witschey; Manabu Takebe; Chikashi Aoki; Jason A Burdick; Francis G Spinale; Joseph H Gorman; James J Pilla; Robert C Gorman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 4.330