Intraoperative Assessment of Noninvasive Left Ventricular Myocardial Work Indices in Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of noninvasive left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) enables insights into cardiac contractility and efficacy beyond conventional echocardiography. However, there is limited intraoperative data on patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The aim of this study was to describe the feasibility and the intraoperative course of this technique of ventricular function assessment in these patients and compare it to conventional two (2D)- and three-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic measurements and strain analysis.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Single university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five patients scheduled for isolated AVR with preoperative preserved left and right ventricular function, sinus rhythm, without significant other heart valve disease or pulmonary hypertension, and an uneventful intraoperative course.

INTERVENTIONS

Transesophageal echocardiography was performed after induction of anesthesia (T1), after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass (T2), and after sternal closure (T3). Evaluation was performed in stable hemodynamics, in sinus rhythm or atrial pacing and vasopressor support with norepinephrine ≤ 0.1 µg/kg/min.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

EchoPAC v206 software (GE Vingmed Ultrasound AS, Norway) was used for analysis of 2D and 3D LV ejection fraction (EF), LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), LV global work index (GWI), LV global constructive work (GCW), LV global wasted work (GWW), and LV global work efficiency (GWE). Estimation of myocardial work was feasible in all patients. Although there was no significant difference in the values of 2D and 3D EF, GWI and GCW decreased significantly after AVR (T1 v T2, 1,647 ± 380 mmHg% v 1,021 ± 233 mmHg%, p < 0.001; T1 v T2, 2,095 ± 433 mmHg% v 1,402 ± 242 mmHg%, p < 0.001, respectively), while GWW remained unchanged (T1 v T2, 296 mmHg% [IQR 178-452) v 309 mmHg% [IQR 255-438), p = 0.97). This resulted in a decreased GWE directly after bypass (T1 v T2, 84% ± 6% v 78% ± 5%, p < 0.001), but GWE already improved at the end of surgery (T2 v T3, 78% ± 5% v 81% ± 5%, p = 0.003). There was no significant change in the values of GWI, GCW, or 2D and 3D LVEF before and after sternal closure (T2 v T3).

CONCLUSION

LV MW analysis showed a reduction of LV workload after bypass in our group of patients, which was not detected by conventional echocardiographic measures. This evolving technique provides deeper insights into cardiac energetics and efficiency in the perioperative course of aortic valve replacement surgery.