scholarly journals The effect of left ventricle ischemia severity on cardiac performance appeared on ejection fraction using radioactive TC 99m MIBI in comparison with echocardiography

2021 ◽  
Vol 2114 (1) ◽  
pp. 012006
Author(s):  
M K Mohammed ◽  
S I Essa
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
End Systolic Volume ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Ischemic heart disease is a major causes of heart failure. Heart failure patients have predominantly left ventricular dysfunction (systolic or diastolic dysfunction, or both). Acute heart failure is most commonly caused by reduced myocardial contractility, and increased LV stiffness. We performed echocardiography and gated SPECT with Tc99m MIBI within 263 patients and 166 normal individuals. Left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were measured. For all degrees of ischemia, there was a significant difference between ejection fraction values measured by SPECT and echocardiography, and there were no significant differences among end systolic volume and end diastolic volume value calculated by two methods for all cases. The mean value for EDV (ECHO)/EDV (SPECT) was 1.07 ± 0.31 for degree (1, 2); in the degree 3 the mean value was 1.02 ± 0.08, and 1.005 ± 0.07 for degree 4. The mean value for ESV (ECHO)/ESV (SPECT) was 1.08 ± 0.34 for degree (1, 2); while 1.03 ± 0.12, 1.021 ± 0.128 for degree 3 and 4 respectively. This study was showed a good relation between left ventricular size and ejection fraction measured by SPECT with Tc99m, and echocardiography.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis : Safety and Efficacy of Mesenchymal stem Cells Therapy for Heart Failure

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiantian Shen ◽  
Lin Xia ◽  
Wenliang Dong ◽  
Jiaxue Wang ◽  
Feng Su ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Stem Cells ◽  
Mesenchymal Stem Cells ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
End Systolic Volume

Background: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may be beneficial in treating heart failure (HF). However, the effects of stem cell therapy in patients with heart failure is an ongoing debate and the safety and efficacy of MSCs therapy is not well-known. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials that evaluated the safety and efficacy of MSCs for HF. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of MSCs therapy compared to the placebo in heart failure patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library systematically, with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials(RCTs) assessing the influence of MSCs treatment function controlled with placebo in heart failure were included in this analysis. We included RCTs with data on safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure after mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Two investigators independently searched the articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Pooled data was performed using the fixed-effect model or random-effect model when it appropriate by use of Review Manager 5.3. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias of included studies. The primary outcome was safety assessed by death and rehospitalization and the secondary outcome was efficacy which was assessed by six-minute walk distance and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)，left ventricular end-systolic volume（LVESV），left ventricular end-diastolic volume（LVEDV） and brain natriuretic peptide（BNP） Results: A total of twelve studies were included, involving 823 patients who underwent MSCs or placebo treatment. The overall rate of death showed a trend of reduction of 27% (RR [CI]=0.73 [0.49, 1.09], p=0.12) in the MSCs treatment group. The incidence of rehospitalization was reduced by 47% (RR [CI]=0.53[0.38, 0.75], p=0.0004). The patients in the MSCs treatment group realised an average of 117.01m (MD [95% CI]=117.01m [94.87, 139.14], p<0.00001) improvement in 6MWT.MSCs transplantation significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 5.66 % (MD [95% CI]=5.66 [4.39, 6.92], p<0.00001), decreased left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) by 14.75 ml (MD [95% CI]=-14.75 [-16.18, -12.83], p<0.00001 ) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) by 5.78 ml (MD [95% CI]=-5.78[-12.00, 0.43], p=0.07 ) ,in the MSCs group , BNP was decreased by 133.51 pg/ml MD [95% CI]= -133.51 [-228.17,-38.85], p=0.54, I2= 0.0%) than did in the placebo group. Conclusions: Our results suggested that mesenchymal stem cells as a regenerative therapeutic approach for heart failure is safe and effective by virtue of their self-renewal potential, vast differentiation capacity and immune modulating properties. Allogenic MSCs have superior therapeutic effects and intracoronary injection is the optimum delivery approach. In the tissue origin, patients who received treatment with umbilical cord MSCs seem more effective than bone marrow MSCs. As to dosage injected, (1-10)*10^8 cells were of better effect.

Abstract P232: Screening Past B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) Values to Identify Candidates for Treatment of Systolic Dysfunction

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Parisa Gholami ◽  
Shoutzu Lin ◽  
Paul Heidenreich
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Background: BNP testing is now common though it is not clear if the test results are used to improve patient care. A high BNP may be an indicator that the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is low (<40%) such that the patient will benefit from life-prolonging therapy. Objective: To determine how often clinicians obtained a measure of LVEF (echocardiography, nuclear) following a high BNP value when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not known to be low (<40%). Methods and Results: We reviewed the medical records of 296 consecutive patients (inpatient or outpatient) with a BNP values of at least 200 pg/ml at a single medical center (tertiary hospital with 8 community clinics). A prior diagnosis of heart failure was made in 65%, while 42% had diabetes, 79% had hypertension, 59% had ischemic heart disease and 31% had chronic lung disease. The mean age was 73 ± 12 years, 75% were white, 10% black, 15% other and the mean BNP was 810 ± 814 pg/ml. The LVEF was known to be < 40% in 84 patients (28%, mean BNP value of 1094 ± 969 pg/ml). Of the remaining 212 patients without a known low LVEF, 161 (76%) had a prior LVEF >=40% ( mean BNP value of 673 ± 635 pg/ml), and 51 (24%) had no prior LVEF documented (mean BNP 775 ± 926 pg/ml). Following the high BNP, a measure of LVEF was obtained (including outside studies documented by the primary care provider) within 6 months in only 53% (113 of 212) of those with an LVEF not known to be low. Of those with a follow-up echocardiogram, the LVEF was <40% in 18/113 (16%) and >=40% in 95/113 (84%). There was no significant difference in mean initial BNP values between those with a follow-up LVEF <40% (872 ± 940pg/ml), >=40% (704 ± 737 pg/ml), or not done (661 ± 649 pg/ml, p=0.5). Conclusions: Follow-up measures of LVEF did not occur in almost 50% of patients with a high BNP where the information may have led to institution of life-prolonging therapy. Of those that did have a follow-up study a new diagnosis of depressesd LVEF was noted in 16%. Screening of existing BNP and LVEF data and may be an efficient strategy to identify patients that may benefit from life-prolonging therapy for heart failure.

scholarly journals 1180 2D and 3D assessment of the left ventricle volume and ejection fraction in a general population

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Ericsson ◽  
B Tayal ◽  
K Hay Kragholm ◽  
T Zaremba ◽  
N Holmark Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Left Ventricle ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
End Systolic Volume ◽  
The Mean ◽  
2D And 3D

Abstract Introduction In standard practice, LV volumes and EF are estimated by 2D technique. 3D echocardiographic assessment seems more reliable; however, this method has not yet been validated in the general population. Purpose To validate 3D echocardiography in a large population sample and investigate differences between 2D and 3D LVEF and volumes Methods In The Copenhagen City Heart Study, 4466 echocardiograms were available for analysis. The echocardiograms were obtained during four consecutive heartbeats in both 2D and 3D with GE Vivid E9. Offline analysis was performed on EchoPac v. 201. LVEF was calculated by the modified Simpsons Biplane Auto EF for 2D and by the 4LVQ method for 3D. Results The study included 2090 echocardiograms. The mean 2D LVEF was 57.3 ± 6.1% (IQR 54 - 61%) and 51.7 ± 7.9% (IQR 47 - 57%) by 3D. The mean end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) by 2D and 3D techniques were: EDV 2D 106.1 ± 29.6 ml vs EDV 3D 128.2 ± 32.3 ml , ESV 2D 45.7 ± 15.6 ml vs. ESV 3D 45.7 ± 20.7 , p &lt; 0.05 among all variables. The average difference of means between 2D and 3D LVEF was 5.6 ± 11.2%, -22.1 ± 56.8 ml for EDV, and -16.9 ± 32.9 ml for ESV. The correlation coefficient for LVEF was 0.42, EDV 0.76 and for ESV 0.70. Conclusion In our study, we found a significant difference in both LVEF and ventricular volumes when comparing 2D echocardiograms with 3D. 3DE had, in general, lower LVEF, higher EDV and ESV compared to 2D. Table 1: Summary of results Table 1 - Summary of results n = 2090 Variable Min Max Mean IQR (25-75) p-value LVEF, 2D (%) 18 76 57.3 ± 6.1 54-61 &lt; 0.05 LVEF, 3d (%) 13 77 51.7 ± 7.9 47-57 &lt; 0.05 EDV, 2D (ml) 13 275 106.1 ± 29.6 85-123.8 &lt; 0.05 EDV, 3D (ml) 50 270 128.2 ± 32.3 106-148 &lt; 0.05 ESV, 2D (ml) 15 150 45.7 ± 15.6 35-54 &lt; 0.05 ESV, 3D (ml) 13 185 45.7 ± 20.7 48-74 &lt; 0.05 LVEF: left ventricle ejection fraction, EDV: end-diastolic volume, ESV: end systolic volume, IQR: Inter-quartile range Abstract 1180 Figure 1: Correlation and BA-plot

scholarly journals A Comparative Study of Bisoprolol with Carvedilol on LV Systolic Function in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ashraf Hossain ◽  
Khurshed Ahmed ◽  
Md Faisal Ibn Kabir ◽  
Md Fakhrul Islam Khaled ◽  
Rakibul H Rashed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Heart Rate ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
Group I ◽  
End Systolic Volume ◽  
Group Ii

Background: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is the most common and prognostically unfavorable outcome of many diseases of the cardiovascular system. Recent data suggest that beta-blockers are beneficial in patients with CHF. Among β-blocker class of drugs, bisoprolol is a highly selective β1-adrenergic receptor blocker whereas Carvedilol is non-selective. Many large-scale trials have confirmed that both these β-blockers are superior to placebo and other β-blockers. This study was designed to compare the effects of carvedilol and bisoprolol in patients with chronic HF in a single center.Methods: It was a quasi experimental study. A total of 288 cases of heart failure were selected by purposive sampling, from January 2017 to June 2017. Each patient was allocated into either of the two groups, and was continued receiving treatment with either bisoprolol (Group-I) or carvedilol (Group-II). Each patient was evaluated clinically and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) and at the end of 3rd month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function.Result: After 3 months of treatment, ejection fraction was found higher in the bisoprolol group (42.6 ± 6.5 versus 38.3 ± 4.6%; P < 0.05). Ejection fraction (EF) changes were 8.4% in bisoprolol group and 4.1% in carvedilol group. A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (21.9±2.5 in group I versus 14.9±5.7 in group II; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter (3.2±0.1 in group I versus 2.3±0.5 in group II; P<0.05) occurred after 3 months of treatment. But no significant differences were observed in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (10.1±3.2 versus 6.1±6.4; P=0.101) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.7±0.8 versus 1.3±0.8; P=0.081) between groups. Three months after treatment, heart rate was reduced in the bisoprolol group from 87.7±9 to 74.5±8.1 and carvedilol group from 88.8±9.1 to 80.1±8.7. Differences in heart rate responses between 2 groups were not statistically significant (P=0.113). Assessment of blood pressure three months later of treatment shows, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were improved in both group but difference between two groups were statistically non significant (p>0.05).Conclusion: In this study, bisoprolol was superior to carvedilol in increasing left-ventricular ejection fraction, improving left ventricular end systolic volume and left ventricular end systolic diameter but no significant difference was observed in LV end diastolic volume, LV end diastolic diameter, heart rate and blood pressure.University Heart Journal Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan 2018; 3-8

scholarly journals Significance of the left ventricular ejection fraction in diagnosis of heart failure

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Yu S Malov ◽  
I I Yarovenko
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricle ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Systolic Volume

Left ventricular ejection fraction, not being an indicator of contractility, is widely used in practice for the diagnosis of heart failure. It reflects only a change in volume of the left ventricle. It was found that the ejection fraction is not so much dependent on the shock and final diastolic volume as on the final systolic volume. An inverse relationship was found between the left ventricular ejection fraction and the end systolic volume. The larger the end systolic volume, the lower the ejection fraction. High final ejection fraction corresponds to a small terminal systolic volume of the left ventricle. The ejection fraction, representing the ratio of the impact volume to the final diastolic, reflects structural changes in the left ventricle. The more these disorders, the lower the fraction of the ejection of the left ventricle. Its connection with heart failure is realized indirectly through structural restructuring of the myocardium. Low ejection fraction indicates severe damage to the myocardium and unfavorable prognosis for the patient. The empirically established emission fraction did not receive a scientific justification for the regulatory framework. According to the symmetrical approach to the study of a heart, the volume ratio of the left ventricle represents a golden proportion (0,618). Hence, the ideal left ventricular ejection fraction is 62 %, but not 50-80 %, as is customary. An increase or decrease in the ejection fraction indicates a change in the volume of the left ventricle. The clinical morphological similarity of patients with heart failure, classified according to functional classes and size of the ejection fraction, was revealed, which casted doubt on the introduction of the classification of heart failure by the size of the ejection fraction into practice.

The Relationship Between N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Level and Myocardial Performance Index and Their Prognostic Importances in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in Short Term Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-17
Author(s):  
Mehmet Küçükosmanoğlu ◽  
Cihan Örem
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ejection Time ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Introduction: MPI is an echocardiographic parameter that exibit the left ventricular functions globally. NT-proBNP  is an important both diagnostic and prognostic factor in heart failure. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of serum NT-proBNP levels and MPI in patients with STEMI. Method: Totally 104 patients with a diagnosis of STEMI were included in the study. Patients followed for 30-days and questioned for presence of symptoms of heart failure (HF) and cardiac death. Patients were invited for outpatient control after 30-days and were divided into two groups: (HF (+) group) and (HF (-) group). Results: Totally 104 patients with STEMI were hospitalized in the coronary intensive care unit. Of those patients, 17 were female (16%), 87 were male (84%), and the mean age of the patients was 58.9±10.8 years. During the 30-day follow-up, 28 (27%) of 104 patients developed HF. The mean age, hypertension ratio and anterior STEMI rate were significantly higher in the HF (+) group compared to the HF (-) group. Ejection time (ET) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were significantly lower and MPI was significantly higher in the HF (+) group. When the values on day first and  sixth were compared, NT-ProBNP levels were decreased in both groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the change in MPI values on the first and sixth days. Multiple regression analysis showed that the presence of anterior MI, first day NT-proBNP level and LVEF were independently associated with development of HF and death. Conclusion: In our study, NT-proBNP levels were found to be positively associated with MPI in patients with acute STEMI. It was concluded that the level of NT-proBNP detected especially on the 1st day was more valuable than MPI in determining HF development and prognosis after STEMI.  

scholarly journals Reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction is Associated with Subsequent Cardiac Events in Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshitaka Okuhara ◽  
Masanori Asakura ◽  
Yoshiyuki Orihara ◽  
Daisuke Morisawa ◽  
Yuki Matsumoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractLeft ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is critical for determining the prognosis and treatment of patients with heart failure (HF). However, the influence of serial LVEF changes in patients with stable chronic HF (CHF) has not yet been completely investigated. We analyzed data of 263 outpatients with CHF from the J-MELODIC study cohort and evaluated the frequency of cardiac events. We stratified patients into tertiles based on the relative difference in LVEF in 1 year and that at baseline. We found a significant difference in the cardiac event rate among the three groups (log-rank test, p = 0.042). We identified a relative 11% LVEF reduction as the optimal cutoff value based on the receiver operating characteristics analysis. LVEF (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.07; p = 0.015) and E/e′ (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01–1.12; p = 0.023) at baseline were predictors of >11% LVEF reduction. After adjusting the variables including age and sex, >11% LVEF reduction was an independent predictor of subsequent cardiac events (HR, 5.79; 95% CI, 2.49–13.2; p < 0.001). In conclusion, patients with 1-year relative >11% LVEF reduction may have subsequent worsening outcomes. Such patients should be carefully followed-up as high risk population for development of cardiac events.

scholarly journals Left Ventricular End-Systolic Volume Is a Reliable Predictor of New-Onset Heart Failure with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Marina Kato ◽  
Shuichi Kitada ◽  
Yu Kawada ◽  
Kosuke Nakasuka ◽  
Shohei Kikuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Prognostic Indicator ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Univariable Analysis ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Systolic Volume

Background. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and LV volumes were reported to have prognostic efficacy in cardiac diseases. In particular, the end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) has been featured as the most reliable prognostic indicator. However, such efficacy in patients with LVEF ≥ 50% has not been elucidated. Methods. We screened the patients who received cardiac catheterization to evaluate coronary artery disease concomitantly with both left ventriculography and LV pressure recording using a catheter-tipped micromanometer and finally enrolled 355 patients with LVEF ≥ 50% and no history of heart failure (HF) after exclusion of the patients with severe coronary artery stenosis requiring early revascularization. Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was defined as adverse events. The prognostic value of LVESVI was investigated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results. A univariable analysis demonstrated that age, log BNP level, tau, peak − dP/dt, LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and LVESVI were associated with adverse events. A correlation analysis revealed that LVESVI was significantly associated with log BNP level (r = 0.356, p<0.001), +dP/dt (r = −0.324, p<0.001), −dP/dt (r = 0.391, p<0.001), and tau (r = 0.337, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis with a stepwise procedure using the variables with statistical significance in the univariable analysis revealed that aging, an increase in BNP level, and enlargement of LVESVI were significant prognostic indicators (age: HR: 1.071, 95% CI: 1.009–1.137, p=0.024; log BNP : HR : 1.533, 95% CI: 1.090–2.156, p=0.014; LVESVI : HR : 1.051, 95% CI: 1.011–1.093, p=0.013, respectively). According to the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for adverse events, log BNP level of 3.23 pg/ml (BNP level: 25.3 pg/ml) and an LVESVI of 24.1 ml/m2 were optimal cutoff values (BNP : AUC : 0.753, p<0.001, LVESVI : AUC : 0.729, p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion. In patients with LVEF ≥ 50%, an increased LVESVI is related to the adverse events. LV contractile performance even in the range of preserved LVEF should be considered as a role of a prognostic indicator.

scholarly journals Effect of the mechanical ventilatory cycle on thermodilution right ventricular volumes and cardiac output

2000 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Johan Groeneveld ◽  
Remco R. Berendsen ◽  
Anton J. Schneider ◽  
Ioannis A. Pneumatikos ◽  
Leo A. Stokkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Systolic Volume ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
Reliable Assessment ◽  
End Systolic Volume

The purpose of this study was to evaluate right ventricular (RV) loading and cardiac output changes, by using the thermodilution technique, during the mechanical ventilatory cycle. Fifteen critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, with 5 cmH2O of positive end-expiratory pressure, mean respiratory frequency of 18 breaths/min, and mean tidal volume of 708 ml, were studied with help of a rapid-response thermistor RV ejection fraction pulmonary artery catheter, allowing 5-ml room-temperature 5% isotonic dextrose thermodilution measurements of cardiac index (CI), stroke volume (SV) index, RV ejection fraction (RVEF), RV end-diastolic volume (RVEDV), and RV end-systolic volume (RVESV) indexes at 10% intervals of the mechanical ventilatory cycle. The ventilatory modulation of CI and RV volumes varied from patient to patient, and the interindividual variability was greater for the latter variables. Within patients also, RV volumes were modulated more by the ventilatory cycle than CI and SV index. Around a mean value of 3.95 ± 1.18 l · min−1 · m−2 (= 100%), CI varied from 87.3 ± 5.2 (minimum) to 114.3 ± 5.1% (maximum), and RVESV index varied between 61.5 ± 17.8 and 149.3 ± 34.1% of mean 55.1 ± 17.9 ml/m2 during the ventilatory cycle. The variations in the cycle exceeded the measurement error even though the latter was greater for RVEF and volumes than for CI and SV index. For mean values, there was an inspiratory decrease in RVEF and increase in RVESV, whereas a rise in RVEDV largely prevented a fall in SV index. We conclude that cyclic RV afterloading necessitates multiple thermodilution measurements equally spaced in the ventilatory cycle for reliable assessment of RV performance during mechanical ventilation of patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document