Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2002
Left ventricular outflow tract mean systolic acceleration as a surrogate for the slope of the left ventricular end-systolic pressure-volume relationship.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bauer Fabrice, Jones Michael, Shiota Takahiro, Firstenberg Michael S, Qin Jian Xin, Tsujino Hiroyuki, Kim Yong Jin, Sitges Marta, Cardon Lisa A, Zetts Arthur D, Thomas James D, New Collective Author
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to analyze left ventricular outflow tract systolic acceleration (LVOT(Acc)) during alterations in left ventricular (LV) contractility and LV filling.
BACKGROUND: Most indexes described to quantify LV systolic function, such as LV ejection fraction and cardiac output, are dependent on loading conditions.
METHODS: In 18 sheep (4 normal, 6 with aortic regurgitation, and 8 with old myocardial infarction), blood flow velocities through the LVOT were recorded using conventional pulsed Doppler. The LVOT(Acc) was calculated as the aortic peak velocity divided by the time to peak flow; LVOT(Acc) was compared with LV maximal elastance (E(m)) acquired by conductance catheter under different loading conditions, including volume and pressure overload during an acute coronary occlusion (n = 10). In addition, a clinically validated lumped-parameter numerical model of the cardiovascular system was used to support our findings.
RESULTS: Left ventricular E(m) and LVOT(Acc) decreased during ischemia (1.67 +/- 0.67 mm Hg.ml(-1) before vs. 0.93 +/- 0.41 mm Hg.ml(-1) during acute coronary occlusion [p < 0.05] and 7.9 +/- 3.1 m.s(-2) before vs. 4.4 +/- 1.0 m.s(-2) during coronary occlusion [p < 0.05], respectively). Left ventricular outflow tract systolic acceleration showed a strong linear correlation with LV E(m) (y = 3.84x + 1.87, r = 0.85, p < 0.001). Similar findings were obtained with the numerical modeling, which demonstrated a strong correlation between predicted and actual LV E(m) (predicted = 0.98 [actual] -0.01, r = 0.86). By analysis of variance, there was no statistically significant difference in LVOT(Acc) under different loading conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: For a variety of hemodynamic conditions, LVOT(Acc) was linearly related to the LV contractility index LV E(m) and was independent of loading conditions. These findings were consistent with numerical modeling. Thus, this Doppler index may serve as a good noninvasive index of LV contractility.
BACKGROUND: Most indexes described to quantify LV systolic function, such as LV ejection fraction and cardiac output, are dependent on loading conditions.
METHODS: In 18 sheep (4 normal, 6 with aortic regurgitation, and 8 with old myocardial infarction), blood flow velocities through the LVOT were recorded using conventional pulsed Doppler. The LVOT(Acc) was calculated as the aortic peak velocity divided by the time to peak flow; LVOT(Acc) was compared with LV maximal elastance (E(m)) acquired by conductance catheter under different loading conditions, including volume and pressure overload during an acute coronary occlusion (n = 10). In addition, a clinically validated lumped-parameter numerical model of the cardiovascular system was used to support our findings.
RESULTS: Left ventricular E(m) and LVOT(Acc) decreased during ischemia (1.67 +/- 0.67 mm Hg.ml(-1) before vs. 0.93 +/- 0.41 mm Hg.ml(-1) during acute coronary occlusion [p < 0.05] and 7.9 +/- 3.1 m.s(-2) before vs. 4.4 +/- 1.0 m.s(-2) during coronary occlusion [p < 0.05], respectively). Left ventricular outflow tract systolic acceleration showed a strong linear correlation with LV E(m) (y = 3.84x + 1.87, r = 0.85, p < 0.001). Similar findings were obtained with the numerical modeling, which demonstrated a strong correlation between predicted and actual LV E(m) (predicted = 0.98 [actual] -0.01, r = 0.86). By analysis of variance, there was no statistically significant difference in LVOT(Acc) under different loading conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: For a variety of hemodynamic conditions, LVOT(Acc) was linearly related to the LV contractility index LV E(m) and was independent of loading conditions. These findings were consistent with numerical modeling. Thus, this Doppler index may serve as a good noninvasive index of LV contractility.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AccelerationAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsAortic Valve InsufficiencyCardiac OutputDisease Models, AnimalEchocardiography, DopplerHemodynamicsLinear ModelsModels, CardiovascularMyocardial InfarctionNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedObserver VariationSheepStroke VolumeSystoleVentricular Function, LeftVentricular Pressure