Introduction Of A Vendor-Independent Application For Clinical Generation Of Ventricular Pressure-Volume Loops
Michael Vandenheuvel,Stefaan Bouchez,Jakob Labus,Patrick Wouters,Eckhard Mauermann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.09.112
IF: 2.894
2024-10-27
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
Abstract:Objective Objective – Clinical research with the pressure-volume loop (PVL) methodology remains impeded by the invasive, time-consuming and costly nature of conductance technology. The various PVL-derived parameters, however, have perioperative potential. We aimed to develop an online application (the eMv PVLooper) allowing clinicians and/or researchers to construct ventricular PVLs by combining a right- or left sided ventricular (or arterial) pressure trace with 3D volumetric echo data. Design and method Design and method – First, using simulator derived data (Harvi software), we compared our eMv PVLooper reconstructed PVLs with the provided simulator PVLs. For each ventricle, three loops with diminishing volume states were simulated. All derived parameters were compared. Next, we used clinical data from 12 adult patients who underwent elective CABG, in which right ventricular datasets were collected using 3D TEE (Philips Epiq with X8-2t probe, 4-beat gated imaging) and a pulmonary artery catheter with RV sideport (Edwards VIP+ 5 lumen). All patients were in sinus rhythm. Data were recorded after anaesthetic induction in steady states in baseline, during raised legs, during sustained PEEP of 20cmH2O and after chest opening. 3D datasets were analysed using TomTec Arena 4D RV-Function software. We compared end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), arterial (Ea) and end-systolic (Ees) elastance and ventriculo-arterial coupling (VAC) between the four conditions with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results and conclusions Results – For the simulated data, all calculated parameters matched the simulator output (including Ea, Ees and VAC). In the clinical dataset, overall PVL creation feasibility was 85.4% (rising to 97.6% when combining three acquisitions for each condition). Comparisons with p-values (vs baseline) after Wilcoxon signed-rank test are provided in the figure. Heart rate remained stable between all conditions. During leg raise, end-diastolic (+36 ±23 %) and stroke volume (+32 ±27%) augmented, resulting in increased cardiac output (+34 ±33%). Arterial and end-systolic elastances remained stable, resulting in an unchanged VAC. PEEP resulted in diminished cardiac output (-28 ±26%) attributable to a drop in stroke volume (-17% ±30%). Arterial elastance was markedly increased (+126 ±80%), as opposed to the other conditions. Ees tended to rise (+29 % ±29%) but did not achieve statistical significance, resulting overall in a marked decrease in VAC (-39% ±17%). Chest opening resulted in minor effects. Most notably, right ventricular coupling dropped due to a lowering of Ees (-23% ±22%).Boxplots of output variables of PVL of twelve patients in the four conditions: baseline (black), leg raise (pink), sustained PEEP (blue) and open chest condition (green). P-values from Wilcoxon signed-rank versus baseline. Significance levels: *** (p<0.001), ** (p<0.01), * (p<0.05). Conclusions – Our results suggest that expected physiologic responses could be reproduced using the eMv PVLooper, underscoring the potential of this methodology to advance the understanding and clinical application of pressure-volume frameworks in cardiovascular research and patient care. External validation after this observational setup is required. We wish to underscore that this methodology can also be applied to left sided measurements, notably with arterial pressure data (resulting in PV arcs, representing the systolic part of the PVL).
cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease,respiratory system,anesthesiology