The Conotruncus: I. Its Normal Inversion and Conus Absorption

M. Lev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.46.3.634

IF: 37.8

1972-09-01

Circulation

Abstract:measurements to the nearest millisecond may well imply unjustified precision when using a recording paper speed of 100 mm/sec and time lines of 10 msec, but it is unlikely that the precision of our data would be enhanced by measuring to the nearest 5 msec on paper with 20 msec time lines, as recommended by Weissler and co-workers,1 or to the nearest 5 msec on paper with 40 msec time lines, as reported by Aronow et al.2 The STIs obtained immediately following exercise were corrected for heart rate using regression equations developed in resting supine subjects.1 3 Such an approach has been used by other workers in this field,4 and it is our opinion that such corrections would at least partially neutralize the chronotropic effects of exercise and better expose other exercise-related hemodynamic alterations. Although we concur with Dr. Weissler that it would have been preferable to apply regression equations developed in supine exercising subjects, to our knowledge such data are not presently available. Furthermore, the ratio of PEP/LVET did not require heart rate correction. From the conceptual standpoint, we agree that the STIs deviate from normal in parallel with other hemodynamic parameters as quantitated by correlation coefficients. In our study, these noninvasive measurements permitted the separation of a group of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) from an ageand sexmatched group of normal subjects, the former group having a significantly longer PEPC, shorter LVETC, and larger PEP/LVET at rest and exercise. The abnormal STIs occurred predominantly in a subgroup of patients in the CAD group in whom significant abnormalities of strokevolume index, cardiac index, LV dP/dt, or ejection fraction existed. However, we must take issue with Dr. Weissler if he contends that the STIs reliably detect minor abnormalities of ventricular function in the individual patient with chronic CAD. Despite significant correlations in our report between the STIs and several directly measured hemodynamic parameters, the overlap in the data prevents any confident prediction of left ventricular dysfunction as conventionally defined unless the functional abnormalities are severe. For example, in our figure 2 which correlates the left ventricular ejection fraction as measured angiographically with PEP/LVET obtained immediately after exercise, a PEP/LVET of 0.30 was associated with ejection fractions varying from 0.40 to 0.90. This occurred despite the significant correlation (r -0.67; P < 0.0005) between these two variables. On the basis of our study, we are in agreement with Dr. Weissler that one should not attempt to predict from measurements of STIs such hemodynamic variables as cardiac index, stroke-volume index, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, pulmonary artery and wedge pressures, exercise factor, or LV dP/dt, or attempt to predict the presence and extent of coronary artery disease or left ventricular asynergy as demonstrated on cineangiography. Furthermore, the available data suggest that the STIs cannot reliably separate the individual subject with normal cardiac function or normal coronary arteries from the patient with chronic CAD with mild-to-moderate left ventricular dysfunction. Yet it is in this latter group of patients rather than those with clinically more apparent abnormalities of ventricular performance that STIs might have offered the most useful contribution as a noninvasive bedside technic. If such indirectly obtained time intervals provide an imprecise potentially misleading measure of the underlying interdependent parameters of left ventricular function, then caution should be exercised in applying them in the clinical evaluation and follow-up of the individual patient with CAD.