在猪模型中比较导纳和心脏磁共振生成的压力-容积环路。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 BIOPHYSICS
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physiological measurement
Physiological measurement 生物-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
124
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信