Cargando…

Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) contractility and compliance are derived from pressure–volume (PV) loops during dynamic preload reduction, but reliable simultaneous measurements of pressure and volume are challenging with current technologies. We have developed a method to quantify contractility a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seemann, Felicia, Bruce, Christopher G., Khan, Jaffar M., Ramasawmy, Rajiv, Potersnak, Amanda G., Herzka, Daniel A., Kakareka, John W., Jaimes, Andrea E., Schenke, William H., O’Brien, Kendall J., Lederman, Robert J., Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36642713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00913-4
_version_ 1784869957587173376
author Seemann, Felicia
Bruce, Christopher G.
Khan, Jaffar M.
Ramasawmy, Rajiv
Potersnak, Amanda G.
Herzka, Daniel A.
Kakareka, John W.
Jaimes, Andrea E.
Schenke, William H.
O’Brien, Kendall J.
Lederman, Robert J.
Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E.
author_facet Seemann, Felicia
Bruce, Christopher G.
Khan, Jaffar M.
Ramasawmy, Rajiv
Potersnak, Amanda G.
Herzka, Daniel A.
Kakareka, John W.
Jaimes, Andrea E.
Schenke, William H.
O’Brien, Kendall J.
Lederman, Robert J.
Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E.
author_sort Seemann, Felicia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) contractility and compliance are derived from pressure–volume (PV) loops during dynamic preload reduction, but reliable simultaneous measurements of pressure and volume are challenging with current technologies. We have developed a method to quantify contractility and compliance from PV loops during a dynamic preload reduction using simultaneous measurements of volume from real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and invasive LV pressures with CMR-specific signal conditioning. METHODS: Dynamic PV loops were derived in 16 swine (n = 7 naïve, n = 6 with aortic banding to increase afterload, n = 3 with ischemic cardiomyopathy) while occluding the inferior vena cava (IVC). Occlusion was performed simultaneously with the acquisition of dynamic LV volume from long-axis real-time CMR at 0.55 T, and recordings of invasive LV and aortic pressures, electrocardiogram, and CMR gradient waveforms. PV loops were derived by synchronizing pressure and volume measurements. Linear regression of end-systolic- and end-diastolic- pressure–volume relationships enabled calculation of contractility. PV loops measurements in the CMR environment were compared to conductance PV loop catheter measurements in 5 animals. Long-axis 2D LV volumes were validated with short-axis-stack images. RESULTS: Simultaneous PV acquisition during IVC-occlusion was feasible. The cardiomyopathy model measured lower contractility (0.2 ± 0.1 mmHg/ml vs 0.6 ± 0.2 mmHg/ml) and increased compliance (12.0 ± 2.1 ml/mmHg vs 4.9 ± 1.1 ml/mmHg) compared to naïve animals. The pressure gradient across the aortic band was not clinically significant (10 ± 6 mmHg). Correspondingly, no differences were found between the naïve and banded pigs. Long-axis and short-axis LV volumes agreed well (difference 8.2 ± 14.5 ml at end-diastole, -2.8 ± 6.5 ml at end-systole). Agreement in contractility and compliance derived from conductance PV loop catheters and in the CMR environment was modest (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.56 and 0.44, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic PV loops during a real-time CMR-guided preload reduction can be used to derive quantitative metrics of contractility and compliance, and provided more reliable volumetric measurements than conductance PV loop catheters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-023-00913-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9841727
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98417272023-01-17 Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization Seemann, Felicia Bruce, Christopher G. Khan, Jaffar M. Ramasawmy, Rajiv Potersnak, Amanda G. Herzka, Daniel A. Kakareka, John W. Jaimes, Andrea E. Schenke, William H. O’Brien, Kendall J. Lederman, Robert J. Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) contractility and compliance are derived from pressure–volume (PV) loops during dynamic preload reduction, but reliable simultaneous measurements of pressure and volume are challenging with current technologies. We have developed a method to quantify contractility and compliance from PV loops during a dynamic preload reduction using simultaneous measurements of volume from real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and invasive LV pressures with CMR-specific signal conditioning. METHODS: Dynamic PV loops were derived in 16 swine (n = 7 naïve, n = 6 with aortic banding to increase afterload, n = 3 with ischemic cardiomyopathy) while occluding the inferior vena cava (IVC). Occlusion was performed simultaneously with the acquisition of dynamic LV volume from long-axis real-time CMR at 0.55 T, and recordings of invasive LV and aortic pressures, electrocardiogram, and CMR gradient waveforms. PV loops were derived by synchronizing pressure and volume measurements. Linear regression of end-systolic- and end-diastolic- pressure–volume relationships enabled calculation of contractility. PV loops measurements in the CMR environment were compared to conductance PV loop catheter measurements in 5 animals. Long-axis 2D LV volumes were validated with short-axis-stack images. RESULTS: Simultaneous PV acquisition during IVC-occlusion was feasible. The cardiomyopathy model measured lower contractility (0.2 ± 0.1 mmHg/ml vs 0.6 ± 0.2 mmHg/ml) and increased compliance (12.0 ± 2.1 ml/mmHg vs 4.9 ± 1.1 ml/mmHg) compared to naïve animals. The pressure gradient across the aortic band was not clinically significant (10 ± 6 mmHg). Correspondingly, no differences were found between the naïve and banded pigs. Long-axis and short-axis LV volumes agreed well (difference 8.2 ± 14.5 ml at end-diastole, -2.8 ± 6.5 ml at end-systole). Agreement in contractility and compliance derived from conductance PV loop catheters and in the CMR environment was modest (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.56 and 0.44, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic PV loops during a real-time CMR-guided preload reduction can be used to derive quantitative metrics of contractility and compliance, and provided more reliable volumetric measurements than conductance PV loop catheters. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12968-023-00913-4. BioMed Central 2023-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9841727/ /pubmed/36642713 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00913-4 Text en © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Seemann, Felicia
Bruce, Christopher G.
Khan, Jaffar M.
Ramasawmy, Rajiv
Potersnak, Amanda G.
Herzka, Daniel A.
Kakareka, John W.
Jaimes, Andrea E.
Schenke, William H.
O’Brien, Kendall J.
Lederman, Robert J.
Campbell-Washburn, Adrienne E.
Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title_full Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title_fullStr Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title_full_unstemmed Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title_short Dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
title_sort dynamic pressure–volume loop analysis by simultaneous real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance and left heart catheterization
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841727/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36642713
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-023-00913-4
work_keys_str_mv AT seemannfelicia dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT brucechristopherg dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT khanjaffarm dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT ramasawmyrajiv dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT potersnakamandag dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT herzkadaniela dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT kakarekajohnw dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT jaimesandreae dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT schenkewilliamh dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT obrienkendallj dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT ledermanrobertj dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization
AT campbellwashburnadriennee dynamicpressurevolumeloopanalysisbysimultaneousrealtimecardiovascularmagneticresonanceandleftheartcatheterization