Intraoperative Noninvasive Left Ventricular Myocardial Work Indices in Patients Undergoing On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Jakob Labus,André Foit,Oliver Mehler,Parwis Rahmanian,Bernd W Böttiger,Wolfgang A Wetsch,Alexander Mathes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2022.10.025
Abstract:Objectives: Noninvasive echocardiographic analysis of left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) enables insights into cardiac mechanics, contractility, and efficacy beyond ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS). However, there are limited perioperative data on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The authors aimed to describe the feasibility and the intraoperative course of this novel assessment tool of ventricular function in these patients, and compare it to conventional 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) echocardiographic parameters and strain analysis. Design: A prospective observational study. Setting: At a single university hospital. Participants: Twenty-five patients with preoperative preserved LV and right ventricular function, sinus rhythm, without significant heart valve disease or pulmonary hypertension, and an uncomplicated intraoperative course scheduled for isolated on-pump CABG surgery. Interventions: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed intraoperatively after the induction of anesthesia (T1), after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass (T2), and after sternal closure (T3). All measurements were performed under stable hemodynamic conditions, in sinus rhythm or atrial pacing, and vasopressor support with norepinephrine ≤ 0.1 µg/kg/min. Measurements and main results: The EchoPAC v204 software (GE Vingmed Ultrasound AS, Norway) was used for analysis of 2D and 3D LVEF, LV GLS, LV global work index (GWI), LV global constructive work (GCW), LV global wasted work (GWW), and LV global work efficiency (GWE). The MW analysis was feasible in all patients. Although there was no significant difference in the values of 2D and 3D EF during the intraoperative interval, GLS deteriorated significantly after CABG compared to assessment after induction of anesthesia (T1 v T2, -13.3 ± 3.0% v -11.6 ± 3.1%; p = 0.012). The GWI declined significantly after surgery (T1 v T2, 1,224 ± 312 mmHg% v 940 ± 267 mmHg%; p < 0.001), as well as GCW (T1 v T2, 1,460 ± 312 mmHg% v 1,244 ± 336 mmHg%; p = 0.005). The GWW increased after CABG (T1 v T2, 143 mmHg% (IQR 99-183) v 251 mmHg% (IQR 179-361); p < 0.001), and GWE decreased (T1 v T2, 89% (IQR 85-92) v 80% (IQR 75-87); p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the values of 2D and 3D EF, GLS, GWI, GCW, GWW, and GWE before and after sternal closure (T2 v T3). Conclusion: The intraoperative analysis of noninvasive echocardiographically-assessed LV MW indices is feasible. In the short-term period after uncomplicated on-pump CABG, GLS, as well as global and constructive MW, decreased, whereas wasted work increased, resulting in a less efficient left ventricle. None of these aspects was detected by conventional echocardiographic parameters. Therefore, strain and MW analysis might be more sensitive parameters in detecting myocardial dysfunction by TEE in the perioperative setting, adding information on perioperative cardiac energetics.