Raza Farhan, Lechuga Chris G, Wieben Oliver, Chesler Naomi C
Department of Medicine-Cardiovascular Division, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.
Edwards Lifesciences Foundation Cardiovascular Innovation and Research Center (CIRC), Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, California.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2025 Mar;44(3):331-335. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.018. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
Right ventricular (RV) pressure-volume (PV) loops require postacquisition volume calibration by cardiac MRI (CMR) or hypertonic saline (HS). We defined the impact of these 2 volume calibration methods on rest-to-exercise ventricular contractility (end-systolic elastance: Ees), arterial afterload (Ea), and coupling (Ees/Ea).
In a prospective study, 82 RV PV-loop datapoints (rest, exercise stages every 25 W, and recovery) and CMR were acquired in 19 participants.
In comparison to CMR, HS-based calibration overestimated RV end-systolic volume at rest, mean (SD) by +38 ml (48) and end-diastolic volume by +46 ml (68), resulting in underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) by -8%. However, Ees and Ea were similar at rest (r = 0.76 and 0.71, respectively, p < 0.001 for both), and Ees:Ea was identical (r = 1.00, p < 0.001). Exercise metrics also remained similar: RV reserve (ΔEes) and change in coupling (ΔEes/Ea).
In comparison to CMR (gold-standard), HS-based calibration underestimates RVEF at rest; however, it is a robust approach for measuring coupling and RV reserve.
右心室(RV)压力-容积(PV)环需要通过心脏磁共振成像(CMR)或高渗盐水(HS)进行采集后容积校准。我们定义了这两种容积校准方法对静息至运动时心室收缩性(收缩末期弹性:Ees)、动脉后负荷(Ea)和耦联(Ees/Ea)的影响。
在一项前瞻性研究中,对19名参与者采集了82个右心室PV环数据点(静息、每25瓦运动阶段和恢复阶段)以及CMR数据。
与CMR相比,基于HS的校准高估了静息时右心室收缩末期容积,平均(标准差)高估了+38毫升(48),舒张末期容积高估了+46毫升(68),导致右心室射血分数(RVEF)低估了-8%。然而,静息时Ees和Ea相似(分别为r = 0.76和0.71,两者p均<0.001),且Ees:Ea相同(r = 1.00,p < 0.001)。运动指标也保持相似:右心室储备(ΔEes)和耦联变化(ΔEes/Ea)。
与CMR(金标准)相比,基于HS的校准在静息时低估RVEF;然而,它是测量耦联和右心室储备的一种可靠方法。