Advertisement

Basic Research in Cardiology

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 413–422 | Cite as

Late systolic stress-diameter relation in patients with aortic valve disease before and after valve replacement

  • L. Bonandi
  • O. M. Hess
  • M. Turina
  • H. P. Krayenbuehl
Original Contributions

Summary

The end-systolic pressure-diameter ratio (Ees) and the maximal pressure-diameter ratio (Emax) during systolic ejection were determined in 10 control patients and 25 patients with aortic valve disease before and 18 months after successful valve replacement. The pressure-diameter ratio was determined from simultaneous M-mode echocardiograms and high-fidelity pressure measurements. A new index of myocardial contractility, as proposed by Pouleur and co-workers, was assessed from the late systolic stress-diameter relationship during one single heart cycle. The slope of this stress-diameter relationship was used for determination of myocardial contractility. Meridional wall stress was calculated from echopressure measurements at time intervals of 5 to 10 msec. The aortic valve patients were divided into two groups according to the preoperative angiographic ejection fraction: group 1 (ejection fraction ≧57%) consisted of 16 patients and group 2 (ejection fraction <57%) of 9 patients.

Standard hemodynamics showed a significant decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure from 18 to 11 mm Hg in group 1 (P<0.01) and from 16 to 12 mm Hg (NS) in group 2. Peak systolic pressure decreased from 186 to 135 mm Hg (P<0.01) in group 1 and from 155 to 140 mm Hg (NS) in group 2. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume decreased from 137 to 105 ml/m2 in group 1 and from 225 to 150 ml/m2 in group 2 (P<0.05) whereas left ventricular ejection fraction remained unchanged in group 1 (67 versus 65%) and increased slightly in group 2 (45 versus 51%) following surgery. Emax and Ees were preoperatively significantly decreased in group 2 when compared to group 1. Postoperatively, Emax and Ees were no longer significantly different between the two groups although left ventricular ejection fraction remained significantly depressed in group 2 after surgery when compared to group 1. The slope of the late systolic stress-diameter relationship (β) and the diameter at zero stress (D0) did not show any difference between the two groups pre- as well as postoperatively.

Thus it is concluded that Ees and Emax might help to identify myocardial dysfunction in preoperative patients with aortic valve disease. However, in the presence of persistent myocardial dysfunction, as evaluated from systolic ejection fraction, following successful valve replacement, both Ees and Emax do not allow to identify patients with postoperative depressed myocardial function. The failure of the slope of the late systolic stress-diameter relationship to distinguish between patients with normal and decreased ejection performance is due to an intrinsic relation between stress and diameter. Hence this index cannot be recommended for the assessment of contractility in patients with aortic valve disease.

Key words

pressure-diameter ratio late systolic stress-diameter relationship aortic valve disease aortic valve replacement myocardial function 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brodie BR, McLaurin LP, Grossman W (1976) Combined hemodynamic-ultrasonic method for studying left ventricular wall stress. Am J Cardiol 37:864–870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dodge HT, Sandler H, Baxley WA, Hawley RR (1966) Usefulness and limitations of radiographic methods for determining left ventricular volume. Am J Cardiol 18:10–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eichhorn P, Grimm J, Koch R, Hess O, Carroll J, Krayenbuehl HP (1982) Left ventricular relaxation in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy secondary to aortic valve disease. Circulation 65:1395–1404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grossman W, Braunwald E, Mann T, McLaurin LP, Green LH (1977) Contractile state of left ventricle in man as evaluated from end-systolic pressure-volume relations. Circulation 56:845–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huber D, Grimm J, Koch R, Krayenbuehl HP (1981) Determinants of ejection performance in aortic stenosis. Circulation 64:126–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacob R, Kissling G (1981) Left ventricular dynamics and myocardial function in Goldblatt hypertension of the rat. Biochemical, morphological and electrophysiological correlates. In: The heart in hypertension; Strauer BE (ed). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 89–107Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krayenbuehl HP, Rutishauser W, Wirz P, Amende I, Mehmel H (1973) High-fidelity left ventricular pressure measurements for the assessment of cardiac contractility in man. Am J Cardiol 31:415–427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mehmel HC, Stockins B, Ruffmann K, v. Olshausen K, Schuler G, Kübler W (1981) The linearity of the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship in man and its sensitivity for assessment of left ventricular function. Circulation 63:1216–1222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nie NH, Hull CM, Jenkins JG, Steinbrenner K, Bent DM (1979) Statistical package for the Social Sciences. Release 8.0/IBM 3033. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pouleur H, Rousseau MF, Van Eyll C, Van Mechelen H, Brasseur LA, Charlier AA (1982) Assessment of left ventricular contractility from late systolic stress-volume relations. Circulation 65:1204–1212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rackley CE, Dodge HT, Coble YD, Hay RE (1964) A method for determining ventricular mass in man. Circulation 29:666–671PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sagawa K (1978) The ventricular pressure-volume diagram revisited. Circ Res 43:677–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sagawa K, Suga H, Shoukas AA, Bakalar KM (1977) End-systolic pressure-volume ratio: a new index of ventricular contractility. Am J Cardiol 40:748–753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suga H, Sagawa K (1974) Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supported canine left ventricle. Circ Res 35:117–126PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Bonandi
    • 1
  • O. M. Hess
    • 1
  • M. Turina
    • 1
  • H. P. Krayenbuehl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Policlinic, Cardiology, and Surgical Clinic AUniversity HospitalZurich(Switzerland)

Personalised recommendations