Stine Andersen, Pernille Holmberg Laursen, Gregory John Wood, Mads Dam Lyhne, Tobias Lynge Madsen, Esben Søvsø Szocska Hansen, Peter Johansen, Won Yong Kim, Mads Jønsson Andersen
{"title":"在猪模型中比较导纳和心脏磁共振生成的压力-容积环路。","authors":"Stine Andersen, Pernille Holmberg Laursen, Gregory John Wood, Mads Dam Lyhne, Tobias Lynge Madsen, Esben Søvsø Szocska Hansen, Peter Johansen, Won Yong Kim, Mads Jønsson Andersen","doi":"10.1088/1361-6579/ad4a03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective</i>. Pressure-volume loop analysis, traditionally performed by invasive pressure and volume measurements, is the optimal method for assessing ventricular function, while cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the gold standard for ventricular volume estimation. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between the assessment of end-systolic elastance (Ees) assessed with combined CMR and simultaneous pressure catheter measurements compared with admittance catheters in a porcine model.<i>Approach</i>. Seven healthy pigs underwent admittance-based pressure-volume loop evaluation followed by a second assessment with CMR during simultaneous pressure measurements.<i>Main results</i>. Admittance overestimated end-diastolic volume for both the left ventricle (LV) and the right ventricle (RV) compared with CMR. Further, there was an underestimation of RV end-systolic volume with admittance. For the RV, however, Ees was systematically higher when assessed with CMR plus simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance whereas there was no systematic difference in Ees but large differences between admittance and CMR-based methods for the LV.<i>Significance</i>. LV and RV Ees can be obtained from both admittance and CMR based techniques. There were discrepancies in volume estimates between admittance and CMR based methods, especially for the RV. RV Ees was higher when estimated by CMR with simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20047,"journal":{"name":"Physiological measurement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of admittance and cardiac magnetic resonance generated pressure-volume loops in a porcine model.\",\"authors\":\"Stine Andersen, Pernille Holmberg Laursen, Gregory John Wood, Mads Dam Lyhne, Tobias Lynge Madsen, Esben Søvsø Szocska Hansen, Peter Johansen, Won Yong Kim, Mads Jønsson Andersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/1361-6579/ad4a03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Objective</i>. Pressure-volume loop analysis, traditionally performed by invasive pressure and volume measurements, is the optimal method for assessing ventricular function, while cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the gold standard for ventricular volume estimation. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between the assessment of end-systolic elastance (Ees) assessed with combined CMR and simultaneous pressure catheter measurements compared with admittance catheters in a porcine model.<i>Approach</i>. Seven healthy pigs underwent admittance-based pressure-volume loop evaluation followed by a second assessment with CMR during simultaneous pressure measurements.<i>Main results</i>. Admittance overestimated end-diastolic volume for both the left ventricle (LV) and the right ventricle (RV) compared with CMR. Further, there was an underestimation of RV end-systolic volume with admittance. For the RV, however, Ees was systematically higher when assessed with CMR plus simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance whereas there was no systematic difference in Ees but large differences between admittance and CMR-based methods for the LV.<i>Significance</i>. LV and RV Ees can be obtained from both admittance and CMR based techniques. There were discrepancies in volume estimates between admittance and CMR based methods, especially for the RV. RV Ees was higher when estimated by CMR with simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiological measurement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiological measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad4a03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiological measurement","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/ad4a03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标
压力-容积环路分析传统上通过有创压力和容积测量进行,是评估心室功能的最佳方法,而心脏磁共振(CMR)成像是估算心室容积的金标准。本研究的目的是调查在猪模型中,通过 CMR 和同步压力导管测量联合评估收缩末期弹性(Ees)与导入导管评估的一致性。
方法
七头健康猪接受了基于导管的压力-容积环路评估,然后在同步压力测量期间用 CMR 进行了第二次评估。
主要结果
与 CMR 相比,导管高估了左心室(LV)和右心室(RV)的舒张末期容积。此外,接纳法低估了右心室收缩末期容积。然而,就右心室而言,采用 CMR 加同步压力测量法评估的 Ees 系统性地高于接纳法,而接纳法和 CMR 法评估的左心室 Ees 没有系统性差异,但差异很大。导入法和基于 CMR 的方法对容积的估计存在差异,尤其是对 RV。与导入法相比,通过 CMR 同时测量压力估算的 RV Ees 要高。
Comparison of admittance and cardiac magnetic resonance generated pressure-volume loops in a porcine model.
Objective. Pressure-volume loop analysis, traditionally performed by invasive pressure and volume measurements, is the optimal method for assessing ventricular function, while cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the gold standard for ventricular volume estimation. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between the assessment of end-systolic elastance (Ees) assessed with combined CMR and simultaneous pressure catheter measurements compared with admittance catheters in a porcine model.Approach. Seven healthy pigs underwent admittance-based pressure-volume loop evaluation followed by a second assessment with CMR during simultaneous pressure measurements.Main results. Admittance overestimated end-diastolic volume for both the left ventricle (LV) and the right ventricle (RV) compared with CMR. Further, there was an underestimation of RV end-systolic volume with admittance. For the RV, however, Ees was systematically higher when assessed with CMR plus simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance whereas there was no systematic difference in Ees but large differences between admittance and CMR-based methods for the LV.Significance. LV and RV Ees can be obtained from both admittance and CMR based techniques. There were discrepancies in volume estimates between admittance and CMR based methods, especially for the RV. RV Ees was higher when estimated by CMR with simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance.
期刊介绍:
Physiological Measurement publishes papers about the quantitative assessment and visualization of physiological function in clinical research and practice, with an emphasis on the development of new methods of measurement and their validation.
Papers are published on topics including:
applied physiology in illness and health
electrical bioimpedance, optical and acoustic measurement techniques
advanced methods of time series and other data analysis
biomedical and clinical engineering
in-patient and ambulatory monitoring
point-of-care technologies
novel clinical measurements of cardiovascular, neurological, and musculoskeletal systems.
measurements in molecular, cellular and organ physiology and electrophysiology
physiological modeling and simulation
novel biomedical sensors, instruments, devices and systems
measurement standards and guidelines.