Wo Naomi, Rajagopal Vijay, Cheung Michael M H, Smolich Joseph J, Mynard Jonathan P
Heart Research, Clinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, 50 Flemington Rd., Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Heart Vessels. 2019 Apr;34(4):716-723. doi: 10.1007/s00380-018-1303-5. Epub 2018 Nov 14.
Multi-beat end-systolic elastance (E) is considered a gold-standard index of ventricular contractility. However, it is difficult to measure clinically due to the need for transient manipulation of ventricular preload or afterload. We compared the performance of 5 'single-beat' methods that do not require loading interventions, for estimating the equivalent of E. In 7 sheep instrumented with a micromanometer/conductance catheter, single-beat methods were compared with E, obtained after transiently decreasing preload or increasing afterload under a broad range of heart rates and inotropic conditions. The single-beat elastance (E) method described by Shishido et al. (Circulation 102(16):1983-1989, 2000) had the highest correlation (R = 0.69, y = 0.52x + 0.43) with E, although the absolute accuracy was poor. Interestingly, for all methods tested, a higher correlation was observed when E was obtained with an afterload increase (R = 0.47 - 0.78) rather than a preload reduction (R = 0.07-0.57). Within-animal regression coefficients were higher than those obtained from pooled data, with excellent within-animal correlation observed for Shishido et al. method (0.73 ≤ R ≤ 0.96) when using afterload increase as the loading intervention. We conclude that (1) current methods perform better when using an afterload increase to obtain reference E, (2) intra-individual E comparisons may be more reliable than inter-individual comparisons and (3) Shishido et al.'s method demonstrated the strongest correlation with E. Current E methods have limited and variable accuracy, but may hold promise for tracking relative changes in ventricular contractility in individuals.
多次心跳的收缩末期弹性(E)被认为是心室收缩性的金标准指标。然而,由于需要对心室前负荷或后负荷进行短暂操作,临床上难以测量。我们比较了5种无需负荷干预的“单次心跳”方法在估计等效E方面的性能。在7只装有微测压计/电导导管的绵羊中,将单次心跳方法与在广泛的心率和变力状态下通过短暂降低前负荷或增加后负荷获得的E进行比较。Shishido等人(《循环》102(16):1983 - 1989, 2000)描述的单次心跳弹性(E)方法与E的相关性最高(R = 0.69,y = 0.52x + 0.43),尽管绝对准确性较差。有趣的是,对于所有测试方法,当通过增加后负荷获得E时(R = 0.47 - 0.78),观察到的相关性高于通过降低前负荷获得E时(R = 0.07 - 0.57)。动物体内回归系数高于从汇总数据获得的系数,当使用增加后负荷作为负荷干预时,Shishido等人的方法在动物体内具有出色的相关性(0.73≤R≤0.96)。我们得出结论:(1)当使用增加后负荷来获得参考E时,当前方法表现更好;(2)个体内E的比较可能比个体间比较更可靠;(3)Shishido等人的方法与E的相关性最强。当前的E方法准确性有限且变化不定,但可能有望追踪个体心室收缩性的相对变化。