| Literature DB >> 34837447 |
Juan B Ivey-Miranda1,2, Friedrich Wetterling3, Robert Gaul3, Stephen Sheridan3, Jennifer L Asher4, Veena S Rao1, Christopher Maulion1, Devin Mahoney1, Alexandre Mebazaa5, Alastair P Gray6, Daniel Burkhoff7, Martin R Cowie8, Zachary L Cox9, Javed Butler10, Marat Fudim11,12, Kenneth McDonald13, Kevin Damman14, Barry A Borlaug15, Jeffrey M Testani16.
Abstract
AIMS: Remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure has reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in chronic HF as elevation of pulmonary artery pressure provides information that can guide treatment. The venous system is characterized by high capacitance, thus substantial increases in intravascular volume can occur before filling pressures increase. The inferior vena cava (IVC) is a highly compliant venous conduit and thus a candidate for early detection of change in intravascular volume. We aimed to compare IVC cross-sectional area using a novel sensor with cardiac filling pressures during experimental manipulation of volume status, vascular tone, and cardiac function. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Animal; Heart failure; Inferior vena cava; Models; Venous pressure
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34837447 PMCID: PMC9306514 DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Heart Fail ISSN: 1388-9842 Impact factor: 17.349
Figure 1FIRE1 remote monitoring device components. (A) The sensor is an electro‐magnetic resonator comprising of a coil of wire and a capacitor. (B) A hardware unit generates radiofrequency energy, which is transmitted to the belt, worn around the patient's abdomen at elbow height. The energized sensor resonates at a frequency that is detected by the belt.
Figure 2Ex‐vivo and in‐vivo validation of the inferior vena cava sensor. (Top left) The correlation between the known areas of the tubes and the sensor was 1.0 (p < 0.001). (Bottom left) Bland–Altman analysis between known areas of the tubes and sensor; the mean difference was −6.0 mm2. (Top right) The correlation between intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) measured areas and sensor measured was 0.985 (95% confidence interval 0.953–0.995) (p < 0.001). Dashed lines represent the ±10% IVUS area. (Bottom right) Bland–Altman analysis between IVUS areas and sensor; the mean difference was −5.5 mm2.
Figure 3Change in inferior vena cava (IVC) area versus right atrial pressure (RAP) or mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) after nitroglycerin and cardiac pacing experiments.
Figure 4Change in inferior vena cava (IVC) area versus right atrial pressure (RAP) in the nine experimental animals. (Left panels) Association between IVC area and RAP. Top panels show RAP in percent change and bottom panels show RAP in mmHg. Non‐linear associations (p < 0.001 for non‐linearity) was observed between IVC area and RAP. (Right panels) Association of IVC and RAP with volume injected into the animal (ml). IVC was more sensitive than RAP. For instance, at 500 ml of injected volume the percent change in IVC area was ∼60% compared to only ∼20% for RAP. The scatters represent the average of the RAP and IVC of the nine animals at specific volumes that were given into the animal. Volume was injected into the animal in progressively larger boluses (50 ml, 100 ml, 250 ml, etc.) with 2 min of equilibration after each bolus.