| Literature DB >> 28407773 |
Shaun Davidson1, Chris Pretty2, Antoine Pironet3, Shun Kamoi2, Joel Balmer2, Thomas Desaive3, J Geoffrey Chase2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to establish a minimally invasive method for deriving the left ventricular time varying elastance (TVE) curve beat-by-beat, the monitoring of which's inter-beat evolution could add significant new data and insight to improve diagnosis and treatment. The method developed uses the clinically available inputs of aortic pressure, heart rate and baseline end-systolic volume (via echocardiography) to determine the outputs of left ventricular pressure, volume and dead space volume, and thus the TVE curve. This approach avoids directly assuming the shape of the TVE curve, allowing more effective capture of intra- and inter-patient variability.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular system; Minimally invasive; Time varying elastance
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28407773 PMCID: PMC5390429 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-017-0338-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Flowchart of the proposed method. Roman numerals indicate different method regions
Fig. 2Simulating left ventricular pressure. Note P has been shifted left by δ to account for phase lag
Fig. 3Simulating left ventricular volume
Fig. 4The fully instrumented Piétrain Pig. The catheters for measuring P , P and V are positioned to the left of the image
Fig. 5Example TVE curve error. This simulated driver has an error of 7.8% and bias of −3.4%
Absolute percentage error associated with different methods of tracking Ves
| Pig | 1. Fixed | 2. Fixed | 3. Dynamic | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th Perc. (%) | Med (%) | 75th Perc. (%) | 25th Perc. (%) | Med (%) | 75th Perc. (%) | 25th Perc. (%) | Med (%) | 75th Perc. (%) | |
| Pig 1 | 0.7 | 4.6 | 23.9 | 0.6 | 8.7 | 14.7 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 9.0 |
| Pig 2 | 2.1 | 19.5 | 39.1 | 2.1 | 23.4 | 34.0 | 1.8 | 6.5 | 16.5 |
| Pig 3 | 4.2 | 12.2 | 45.0 | 0.2 | 5.6 | 16.6 | 0.5 | 4.5 | 12.7 |
| Pig 4 | 7.3 | 30.7 | 42.7 | 2.9 | 23.3 | 29.3 | 0.4 | 4.7 | 13.6 |
| Pig 5 | 1.1 | 12.4 | 65.4 | 0.9 | 11.7 | 32.7 | 0.4 | 4.2 | 23.4 |
| Mean | 3.1 | 15.9 | 43.2 | 1.3 | 14.5 | 25.5 | 0.7 | 4.3 | 15.0 |
Fig. 6Tracking of V . Comparison between the three methods in 2.2.2 for Pig 1
TVE curve percentage area under the curve errors (ε and ε ) associated with proposed method (identifying V and V )
| Pig | Absolute percentage error, | Signed percentage error, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th Perc. | Med | 75th Perc. | 25th Perc. | Med | 75th Perc. | |
| Pig 1 | 9.0 | 11.6 | 14.4 | −7.0 | −4.9 | −2.6 |
| Pig 2 | 7.8 | 9.4 | 11.6 | −1.4 | 2.3 | 6.6 |
| Pig 3 | 9.4 | 11.4 | 15.6 | −12.6 | −7.8 | −4.5 |
| Pig 4 | 9.5 | 11.1 | 13.0 | −9.3 | −7.5 | −5.7 |
| Pig 5 | 10.5 | 13.4 | 19.0 | −0.3 | 5.2 | 10.1 |
| Mean | 9.2 | 11.4 | 14.7 | −6.1 | −2.5 | 0.8 |
TVE curve percentage area under the curve error (ε and ε ) associated with using measured V and V values
| Pig | Absolute percentage error, | Signed percentage error, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th Perc. | Med | 75th Perc. | 25th Perc. | Med | 75th Perc. | |
| Pig 1 | 9.0 | 11.5 | 13.3 | −8.1 | −5.6 | −2.7 |
| Pig 2 | 7.3 | 8.5 | 10.1 | −3.7 | −0.7 | 2.2 |
| Pig 3 | 7.1 | 8.1 | 9.1 | −4.7 | −2.7 | −0.6 |
| Pig 4 | 9.5 | 11.4 | 13.5 | −9.9 | −7.8 | −5.6 |
| Pig 5 | 9.8 | 11.3 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 6.0 | 9.0 |
| Mean | 8.5 | 10.2 | 11.9 | −4.7 | −2.2 | 0.5 |
Fig. 7Example TVE curves for each pig. A range of error values and cardiac states are shown