Grossman W, Jones D, McLaurin L P
J Clin Invest. 1975 Jul;56(1):56-64. doi: 10.1172/JCI108079.
It is generally recognized that chronic left ventricular (LV) pressure overload results primarily in wall thickening and concentric hypertrophy, while chronic LV volume overload is characterized by chamber enlargement and an eccentric pattern of hypertrophy. To assess the potential role of the hemodynamic factors which might account for these different patterns of hypertrophy, we measured LV wall stresses throughout the cardiac cycle in 30 patients studied at the time of cardiac catheterization. The study group consisted of 6 subjects with LV pressure overload, 18 with LV volume overload, and 6 with no evidence of heart disease (control). LV pressure, meridional wall stress (sigman), wall thickness (h), and radius (R) were measured in each patient throughout the cardiac cycle. For patients with pressure overload, LV peak systolic and end diastolic pressures were significantly increased (220 plus or minus 6/23 plus or minus 3 mm Hg) compared to control (117 plus or minus 7/10 plus or minus 1 mm Hg, P less than 0.01 for each). However, peak systolic and end diastolic (sigman) were normal (161 plus or minus 24/23 plus or minus 3 times 10-3 dyn/cm-2) compared to control (151 plus or minus 14/17 plus or minus 2 times 10-3 dyn/cm-2, NS), reflecting the fact that the pressure overload was exactly counterbalanced by increased wall thickness (1.5 plus or minus 0.1 cm for pressure overload vs. 0.8 plus or minus 0.1 cm for control, P less than 0.01). For patients with volume overload, peak systolic (sigman) was not significantly different from control, but end diastolic (sigmam) was consistently higher than normal (41 plus or minus 3 times 10-3 dyn/cm-2 for volume overload, 17 plus or minus 2 times 10-3 dyn/cm-2 for control, P less than 0.01). LV pressure overload was associated with concentric hypertrophy, and an increased value for the ratio of wall thickness to radius (h/R ratio). In contrast, LV volume overload was associated with eccentric hypertrophy, and a normal h/R ratio. These data suggest the hypothesis that hypertrophy develops to normalize systolic but not diastolic wall stress. We propose that increased systolic tension development by myocardial fibers results in fiber thickening just sufficient to return the systolic stress (force per unit cross-sectional area) to normal. In contrast, increased resting or diastolic tension appears to result in gradual fiber elongation or lengthening which improves efficiency of the ventricular chamber but cannot normalize the diastolic wall stress.
一般认为,慢性左心室(LV)压力超负荷主要导致心室壁增厚和向心性肥大,而慢性LV容量超负荷的特征是心室腔扩大和离心性肥大模式。为了评估可能导致这些不同肥大模式的血流动力学因素的潜在作用,我们在30例接受心导管检查的患者整个心动周期中测量了LV壁应力。研究组包括6例LV压力超负荷患者、18例LV容量超负荷患者和6例无心脏病证据的患者(对照组)。在每个患者的整个心动周期中测量LV压力、子午线壁应力(sigman)、壁厚度(h)和半径(R)。对于压力超负荷患者,与对照组相比,LV收缩压峰值和舒张压末期压力显著升高(220±6/23±3 mmHg)(对照组为117±7/10±1 mmHg,每项P<0.01)。然而,与对照组相比,收缩压峰值和舒张压末期(sigman)正常(161±24/23±3×10-3 dyn/cm-2)(对照组为151±14/17±2×10-3 dyn/cm-2,无显著性差异),这反映了压力超负荷恰好被增加的壁厚度所抵消这一事实(压力超负荷组壁厚度为1.5±0.1 cm,对照组为0.8±0.1 cm,P<0.01)。对于容量超负荷患者,收缩压峰值(sigman)与对照组无显著差异,但舒张压末期(sigmam)始终高于正常水平(容量超负荷组为41±3×10-3 dyn/cm-2,对照组为17±2×10-3 dyn/cm-2,P<0.01)。LV压力超负荷与向心性肥大以及壁厚度与半径之比(h/R比)增加有关。相比之下,LV容量超负荷与离心性肥大以及正常的h/R比有关。这些数据提示了一个假说,即肥大的发生是为了使收缩期而非舒张期壁应力正常化。我们提出,心肌纤维收缩期张力增加导致纤维增厚,增厚程度刚好足以使收缩期应力(单位横截面积的力)恢复正常。相比之下,静息或舒张期张力增加似乎导致纤维逐渐伸长,这提高了心室腔的效率,但不能使舒张期壁应力正常化。