Complexity of preoperative blood pressure dynamics: possible utility in cardiac surgical risk assessment

  • Teresa S. Henriques
  • Madalena D. Costa
  • Pooja Mathur
  • Priyam Mathur
  • Roger B. Davis
  • Murray A. Mittleman
  • Kamal R. Khabbaz
  • Ary L. Goldberger
  • Balachundhar Subramaniam
Original Research
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Complexity measures are intended to assess the cardiovascular system’s capacity to respond to stressors. We sought to determine if decreased BP complexity is associated with increased estimated risk as obtained from two standard instruments: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ (STS) Risk of Mortality and Morbidity Index and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation Score (EuroSCORE II). In this observational cohort study, preoperative systolic, diastolic, mean (MAP) and pulse pressure (PP) time series were derived in 147 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The complexity of the fluctuations of these four variables was quantified using multiscale entropy (MSE) analysis. In addition, the traditional time series measures, mean and standard deviation (SD) were also computed. The relationships between time series measures and the risk indices (after logarithmic transformation) were then assessed using nonparametric (Spearman correlation, rs) and linear regression methods. A one standard deviation change in the complexity of systolic, diastolic and MAP time series was negatively associated (p < 0.05) with the STS and EuroSCORE indices in both unadjusted (21–34%) and models adjusted for age, gender and SD of the BP time series (15–31%). The mean and SD of BP time series were not significantly associated with the risk index except for a positive association with the SD of the diastolic BP. Lower preoperative BP complexity was associated with a higher estimated risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and may provide a novel approach to assessing cardiovascular risk. Future studies are needed to determine whether dynamical risk indices can improve current risk prediction tools.

Keywords

Blood pressure complexity STS EuroSCORE Risk Multiscale entropy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (5R01GM098406 and 5R01GM104987), as well as grants from the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation and James S. McDonnell Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10877_2018_133_MOESM1_ESM.docx (140 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 140 KB)
10877_2018_133_MOESM2_ESM.docx (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 2443 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Cornwell LD, Omer S, Rosengart T, Holman WL, Bakaeen FG. Changes over time in risk profiles of patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the veterans’ affairs surgical quality improvement program (VASQIP). JAMA Surg. 2015;150(4):308–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dewey TM, Brown D, Ryan WH, Herbert MA, Prince SL, Mack MJ. Reliability of risk algorithms in predicting early and late operative outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135(1):180–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinna-Pintor P, Bobbio M, Colangelo S, Veglia F, Giammaria M, Maisano F, Alfieri O. Inaccuracy of four coronary surgery risk-adjusted models to predict mortality in individual patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21(2):199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maslow A, Casey P, Poppas A, Schwartz C, Singh A. Aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the risk of surgery in patients ≥ 80 years old. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;24(1):18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Subramaniam B, Khabbaz KR, Heldt T, Lerner AB, Mittleman MA, Davis RB, Goldberger AL, Costa MD. Blood pressure variability: can nonlinear dynamics enhance risk assessment during cardiovascular surgery? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(2):392–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirkness CJ, Burr RL, Mitchell PH. Intracranial and blood pressure variability and long-term outcome after aneurysmal sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. Am J Crit Care. 2009;18(3):241–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aronson S, Stafford-Smith M, Phillips-Bute B, Shaw A, Gaca J, Newman M. Intraoperative systolic blood pressure variability predicts 30-day mortality in aortocoronary bypass surgery patients. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(2):305–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mancia G. Short-and long-term blood pressure variability present and future. Hypertension. 2012;60(2):512–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floras JS. Blood pressure variability: a novel and important risk factor. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(5):557–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Assessment and management of blood-pressure variability. Nat Rev Cardiol 2013; 10(3):143–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costa M, Goldberger AL, Peng CK. Multiscale entropy analysis of complex physiologic time series. Phys Rev Lett. 2002;89(6):068102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costa M, Goldberger AL, Peng CK. Multiscale entropy analysis of biological signals. Phys Rev E. 2005;71(2):021906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa M, Ghiran I, Peng CK, Nicholson-Weller A, Goldberger AL. Complex dynamics of human red blood cell flickering: alterations with in vivo aging. Phys Rev E. 2008;78(2):020901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartolák-Suki E, Imsirovic J, Parameswaran H, Wellman TJ, Martinez N, Allen PG, Frey U, Suki B. Fluctuation-driven mechanotransduction regulates mitochondrial-network structure and function. Nat Mater. 2015;14(10):1049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberger AL, Amaral LA, Glass L, Hausdorff JM, Ivanov PC, Mark RG, Mietus JE, Moody GB, Peng CK, Stanley HE. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new Research Resource for Complex Physiologic Signals. Circulation. 2000;101(23):e215–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zong W, Heldt T, Moody GB, Mark RG. An open-source algorithm to detect onset of arterial blood pressure pulses. Comput Cardiol 2003;2003:259–62.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saeed M, Villarroel M, Reisner AT, Clifford G, Lehman LW, Moody G, Heldt T, Kyaw TH, Moody B, Mark RG. Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC-II): a public-access intensive care unit database. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):952.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Richman JS, Moorman JR. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2000;278(6):H2039–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson RP. First publications from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;57(1):6–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roques F, Nashef SAM, Michel P, Gauducheau E, De Vincentiis C, Baudet E, Cortina J, David M, Faichney A, Gavrielle F, Gams E, Harjula A, Jones MT, Pinna-Pintor P, Salamon R, Thulin L. Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;15(6):816–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, Gauducheau E, Lemeshow S, Salamon R. EuroSCORE Study Group: European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16(1):9–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nilsson J, Algotsson L, Höglund P, Lührs C, Brandt J. Early mortality in coronary bypass surgery: the EuroSCORE versus The Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk algorithm. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(4):1235–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ad N, Barnett SD, Speir AM. The performance of the EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score: the gender factor. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6(2):192–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kunt AG, Kurtcephe M, Hidiroglu M, Cetin L, Kucuker A, Bakuy V, Akar AR, Sener E. Comparison of original EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and STS risk models in a Turkish cardiac surgical cohort. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16(5):625–29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Piazza N, Wenaweser P, van Gameren M, Pilgrim T, Tsikas A, Otten A, Nuis R, Onuma Y, Cheng JM, Kappetein AP, Boersma E, Juni P, de Jaegere P, Windecker S, Serruys PW. Relationship between the logistic EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score in patients implanted with the CoreValve ReValving system—a Bern-Rotterdam Study. Am Heart J 2010;159(2):323–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ad N, Henry L, Hunt S. Comparison of the New EuroSCORE II with the Original EuroSCORE and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score. Circulation. 2012;126:A18614.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thalji NM, Suri RM, Greason KL, Schaff HV. Risk assessment methods for cardiac surgery and intervention. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11(12):704 – 14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldberger AL, Giles F. Filley lecture. Complex systems. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2006;3(6):467–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sejdić E, Lipsitz LA. Necessity of noise in physiology and medicine. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2013;111(2):459–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teresa S. Henriques
    • 1
    • 2
  • Madalena D. Costa
    • 2
  • Pooja Mathur
    • 1
  • Priyam Mathur
    • 1
  • Roger B. Davis
    • 3
  • Murray A. Mittleman
    • 4
  • Kamal R. Khabbaz
    • 5
  • Ary L. Goldberger
    • 2
  • Balachundhar Subramaniam
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Anesthesia Research Excellence (CARE), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Margret and H.A. Rey Institute of Nonlinear Dynamics in Physiology and MedicineBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of MedicineBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EpidemiologyHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  5. 5.Division of Cardiac Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations