Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1987;75:964-972

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wisenbaugh, T.
Right arrow Articles by Nissen, S. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wisenbaugh, T.
Right arrow Articles by Nissen, S. E.

Circulation, Vol 75, 964-972, Copyright © 1987 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

Influence of aortic valve disease on systolic stiffness of the human left ventricular myocardium

T Wisenbaugh, JL Elion and SE Nissen

The new concept of systolic myocardial stiffness was applied to the study of ejection mechanics in aortic valve disease. Frame-by-frame analysis of stress (sigma) and volume (V) was performed for two differently loaded beats in 26 patients who underwent simultaneous cineangiography and micromanometry: nine normal subjects, eight with isolated aortic regurgitation (AR), and nine with aortic stenosis (AS). Maximum myocardial stiffness (maxEav) was defined as the slope of the end-systolic (es) stress-strain relationship. End-systole was defined as the frame where stiffness was maximal, and strain was defined as epsilon = loge (Dm/Dom), where Dm is left ventricular midwall diameter and Dom is the theoretical Dm at zero stress. Expressed in terms of cavity volume, epsilon = gamma X loge (V/Vo), where gamma is the geometric factor relating Dm to V during systole. Vo was obtained by extrapolating to sigma es = 0 the function, sigma es = maxEav X gamma X loge (Ves/Vo), which was fit to the end-systolic data. Vo always had a value greater than zero. MaxEav was preserved in the AR group (1575 +/- 565) and increased in the AS group (1877 +/- 544; p = .02) compared with normal (1320 +/- 268), suggesting maintenance of contractile force per unit of myocardium in these two lesions. However, theoretical "unloaded" shortening fraction (SFo) was depressed in the AS group (0.30 +/- 0.06; p = .01) compared with normal (0.37 +/- 0.04), preserved in the AR group (0.34 +/- 0.07; p = .24), and inversely related to maxEav (r = -.66, p = .01), suggesting a disparity between shortening potential and force potential.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)