| Literature DB >> 31217995 |
Paolo Peruzzo1, Francesca Maria Susin1, Andrea Colli2, Gaetano Burriesci3,4.
Abstract
Background and objective: Clinical evaluation of pacing therapy in mitigating the aortic insufficiency after transchateter aortic valve implantation often gives contradictory outcomes. This study presents an in vitro investigation aimed at clarifying the effect of pacing on paravalvular leakage.Entities:
Keywords: heart failure treatment; pacemakers; ventricular fibrillation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31217995 PMCID: PMC6546189 DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Heart ISSN: 2053-3624
Figure 1Sketch of the housing valve apparatus as reported by Burriesci et al.13
Summary of experimental work conditions and main measured parameters and postprocessing data
| Work conditions | Measured parameters | ||||||||||||
| pAo | HR | CO | Systole | SV | CV | LV | RV | RF | CFR | LFR | RFR | P | E |
| mm Hg | bpm | L/min | % | mL | mL | mL | mL | % | mL/min | mL/min | mL/min | W | J |
| 60 | 3.4 | 31.8 | 107.4 (0.05) | 5.3 (0.6) | 9.3 (2.0) | 14.6 (2.5) | 20.4 (3.5) | 318 (4.6) | 558 (15.5) | 876 (19.3) | 1.31 (0.02) | 1.31 (0.02) | |
| 70 | 4.0 | 31.9 | 104.6 (0.04) | 5.5 (0.4) | 8.9 (1.9) | 14.4 (2.1) | 20.4 (3.0) | 385 (3.3) | 623 (15.9) | 1008 (17.6) | 1.54 (0.02) | 1.32 (0.01) | |
| 100 | 80 | 4.5 | 36.6 | 102.7 (0.05) | 6.2 (0.6) | 7.7 (1.6) | 13.9 (1.7) | 19.7 (2.4) | 496 (5.4) | 616 (14.3) | 1112 (15.2) | 1.80 (0.01) | 1.35 (0.01) |
| 90 | 5.0 | 39.3 | 98.9 (0.05) | 6.6 (0.8) | 6.3 (2.0) | 12.9 (2.5) | 18.8 (3.6) | 594 (7.6) | 567 (19.0) | 1161 (23.7) | 1.99 (0.02) | 1.33 (0.02) | |
| 100 | 5.5 | 41.4 | 96.8 (0.03) | 7.8 (0.9) | 5.1 (1.8) | 12.9 (2.2) | 19.1 (3.2) | 780 (9.0) | 510 (18.0) | 1290 (22.0) | 2.16 (0.01) | 1.29 (0.01) | |
| 110 | 6.2 | 43.1 | 99.4 (0.00) | 8.2 (1.7) | 5.2 (1.9) | 13.4 (2.3) | 19.3 (3.4) | 902 (17.8) | 572 (19.9) | 1474 (24.1) | 2.60 (0.02) | 1.42 (0.02) | |
Data are averaged over the 10 cycles; values in parentheses are the SD.
CFR, closing regurgitant mean flow rate; CO, cardiac output; CV, closing volume; HR, heart rate; LFR, Leakage mean flow rate; LV, leakage volume; RF, regurgitant fraction; RFR, Total regurgitant flow rate; RV, regurgitant volume; SV, stroke volume.
Figure 2The averaged flow measured over the 10 cardiac cycles as function of the time. Flow was measured at HR=60 bpm (solid black line), HR=70 bpm (dashed black line), HR=80 bpm (dotted black line), HR=90 bpm (solid grey line), HR=100 bpm (dashed grey line) and HR=110 bpm (dotted grey line). CV, closing volume; HR, heart rate; LV, leakage volume; RV, regurgitant volume; SV, stroke volume.
Figure 3Measured parameter on aortic left ventricle performance as function of HR. (A) RV (white circle), the closing volume CV (triangle), the LV at closed valve LV (diamond) and along the second axis the RF (grey circle). Bars error are omitted for clarity. (B) Estimated total regurgitant mean flow rate (RFR) (circle) and the two contributions due to closing mean flow rate (CFR) (triangle) and leakage mean flow rate (LFR) (diamond) (bars error are negligible). (C) estimated power P (white circle) and energy per stroke E (grey circle) of the left ventricle (bars error are negligible). Data are averaged over the 10 cycles. CV, closing volume; HR, heart rate; LV, leakage volume; RF, regurgitant fraction; RV, regurgitant volume.