BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) unloading with mechanical support devices alters biventricular geometry and impairs right ventricular (RV) contractility, but its effect on septal systolic function remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: To evaluate the effects of LV volume and pressure unloading on septal geometry and function, LV preload was abruptly reduced by clamping left atrial pressure between 0 and -2 mm Hg in seven open-chest, anesthetized dogs by use of a pressure-control servomechanism to withdraw blood from the left atrium. With left atrial pressure clamping, maximal LV pressure decreased 30 +/- 12% (mean +/- SD) (P < .0001) and LV end-diastolic cross-sectional area (determined by two-dimensional echocardiography) decreased by 53 +/- 16% (P < .0001). This caused the septum to shift toward the left (RV septal free-wall dimension increased; P < .004) and flatten (radius of curvature increased; P < .0002), while LV septal free-wall dimension fell (P < .0001). Septal end-diastolic thickness increased 23 +/- 15% (P < .0005), reflecting a decline in septal preload. Systolic septal thickening decreased (P < .002), while systolic septal output (Septal Output = Septal Thickening x Heart Rate) fell from 30 +/- 17 to 15 +/- 22 cm/min (P < .002). This was associated with movement along the septal Frank-Starling equivalent (septal output versus end-diastolic septal thickness [preload] relation) to a less productive portion of the curve. CONCLUSIONS: LV unloading not only altered interventricular septal geometry but also reduced septal systolic thickening and output, all of which may contribute to impaired RV contractility during mechanical LV support.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) unloading with mechanical support devices alters biventricular geometry and impairs right ventricular (RV) contractility, but its effect on septal systolic function remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: To evaluate the effects of LV volume and pressure unloading on septal geometry and function, LV preload was abruptly reduced by clamping left atrial pressure between 0 and -2 mm Hg in seven open-chest, anesthetized dogs by use of a pressure-control servomechanism to withdraw blood from the left atrium. With left atrial pressure clamping, maximal LV pressure decreased 30 +/- 12% (mean +/- SD) (P < .0001) and LV end-diastolic cross-sectional area (determined by two-dimensional echocardiography) decreased by 53 +/- 16% (P < .0001). This caused the septum to shift toward the left (RV septal free-wall dimension increased; P < .004) and flatten (radius of curvature increased; P < .0002), while LV septal free-wall dimension fell (P < .0001). Septal end-diastolic thickness increased 23 +/- 15% (P < .0005), reflecting a decline in septal preload. Systolic septal thickening decreased (P < .002), while systolic septal output (Septal Output = Septal Thickening x Heart Rate) fell from 30 +/- 17 to 15 +/- 22 cm/min (P < .002). This was associated with movement along the septal Frank-Starling equivalent (septal output versus end-diastolic septal thickness [preload] relation) to a less productive portion of the curve. CONCLUSIONS: LV unloading not only altered interventricular septal geometry but also reduced septal systolic thickening and output, all of which may contribute to impaired RV contractility during mechanical LV support.
Authors: Athanasios Tsiouris; Gaetano Paone; Hassan W Nemeh; Jamil Borgi; Celeste T Williams; David E Lanfear; Jeffrey A Morgan Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2015-11-26
Authors: Jordan L Williams; Omer Cavus; Emefah C Loccoh; Sara Adelman; John C Daugherty; Sakima A Smith; Benjamin Canan; Paul M L Janssen; Sara Koenig; Crystal F Kline; Peter J Mohler; Elisa A Bradley Journal: Life Sci Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 5.037
Authors: Christopher T Dibble; Joao A C Lima; David A Bluemke; Julio A Chirinos; Harjit Chahal; Michael R Bristow; Richard A Kronmal; R Graham Barr; Victor A Ferrari; Kathleen J Propert; Steven M Kawut Journal: Chest Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: James A Nelson; Juan C Diaz Soto; Matthew A Warner; John M Stulak; Phillip J Schulte; Timothy J Weister; William J Mauermann; Mark M Smith Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 2.663
Authors: Maria Chiara Todaro; Bijoy K Khandheria; Timothy E Paterick; Matt M Umland; Vinay Thohan Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Sarinya Puwanant; Margaret Park; Zoran B Popović; W H Wilson Tang; Samar Farha; Deepa George; Jacqueline Sharp; Jirapa Puntawangkoon; James E Loyd; Serpil C Erzurum; James D Thomas Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lusha W Liang; Alisha Jamil; Jeremy A Mazurek; Kimberly A Urgo; Joyce Wald; Edo Y Birati; Yuchi Han Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.826
Authors: Massimiliano Foschi; Michele Di Mauro; Fabrizio Tancredi; Carlo Capparuccia; Renata Petroni; Luigi Leonzio; Silvio Romano; Sabina Gallina; Maria Penco; Mario Cibelli; Antonio Calafiore Journal: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis Date: 2017-10-20