This Article Abstract Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Senzaki, H. Articles by Kass, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Senzaki, H. Articles by Kass, D. A.

(Circulation. 1996;94:2497-2506.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Single-Beat Estimation of End-Systolic Pressure-Volume Relation in Humans

A New Method With the Potential for Noninvasive Application

Hideaki Senzaki, MD; Chen-Huan Chen, MD; David A. Kass, MD

the Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md.

Correspondence to David A. Kass, MD, Halsted 500, Division of Cardiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail dkass@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Background The end-systolic pressure-volume relation (ESPVR) provides a useful measure of contractile function. However, the need to acquire multiple cardiac cycles at varying loads limits its applicability. We therefore developed and tested a novel single-beat estimation method that is based on normalized human time-varying elastance curves [E_N(t_N)].

Methods and Results Pressure-volume (PV) data were measured by conductance catheter in 87 patients with normal or myopathic hearts. Time-varying elastance curves were generated from 72 PV loops (52 patients) and normalized both by amplitude and time to peak amplitude. The resulting E_N(t_N) curves were remarkably consistent despite variations in underlying cardiac disease, contractility, loading, and heart rate, with minimal interloop variance during the first 25% to 35% of contraction. On the basis of this finding and assuming ESPVR linearity and constant volume-intercept, ESPVRs were estimated from one beat with the use of PV data measured at normalized time (t_N) and end systole (t_max) to predict intercept: V_o(SB)=[E_N(t_N)xP(t_max)xV(t_N)-P(t_N)xV(t_max)]/[E_N(t_N)xP(t_max)-P(t_N)] and slope E_max(SB)=P_es/[V_es-V_o(SB)]. Single-beat estimates were highly correlated with measured ESPVR values obtained by standard multiple-beat analysis (including data from 35 additional patients). E_max(SB) accurately reflected acute inotropic change and was influenced little by loading. The new estimation method also predicted measured ESPVRs better than prior techniques and was applicable to noninvasive analysis.

Conclusions ESPVRs can be reliably estimated in humans from single cardiac cycles by a new method that has a potential for noninvasive application.

Key Words: ventricles • contractility • inotropic agents • patients • myocardial contraction

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
The ESPVR is a valuable measure of ventricular systolic function for both clinical and experimental evaluations.^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8} Acute ESPVR shifts primarily reflect inotropic change, while the slope (E_es) measures end-systolic chamber stiffness, an important determinant of the influence of vascular loading on systolic pressure and flow generation.³ The ESPVR evolved from a linear time-varying elastance [E(t)] model of contraction in which the left ventricle was considered an elastic structure that stiffened and relaxed along a predictable time course during the cardiac cycle.^{1 9} Initial studies by Suga, Sagawa, and colleagues^{1 9} supported this model by showing that the normalized E(t) curve (normalized both by peak and time to peak amplitude) of normal isolated canine hearts was fairly independent of loading conditions, contractile state, and heart rate. Subsequent studies revealed limitations to the simplified theory, such as ESPVR curvilinearity^{10 11 12} and dependence on ejection history (afterload).^{13 14 15 16} However, the most marked deviations from the simple linear model were manifest when extremes of LV loading were contrasted, such as between isovolumic and ejecting beats.^{15 16} Yet vascular loads in intact patients are far more constrained, leaving open the possibility that the normalized E(t) curve in humans might be less load-dependent and more consistent among patients than such studies might suggest.

One practical implication of a consistent normalized E(t) curve in humans is that the ESPVR could be estimated from a single beat. This is clearly advantageous over complex traditional methods of generating ESPVRs from multiple variably loaded cardiac cycles.^{2 3 5} Methods for single-beat ESPVR estimation have been previously proposed,^{17 18 19 20} largely based on arbitrary mathematical curve fitting of LV pressure data measured during isovolumic contraction and relaxation of an ejecting beat. These methods have not been previously tested in abnormal hearts and require measurement of high-fidelity LV pressure. In contrast, estimates derived from the normalized E(t) curve are physiologically based and have the potential for noninvasive assessment.

Accordingly, the present investigation had four principal aims: (1) to test whether the normalized E(t) curve in humans is consistent among patients despite marked differences in underlying myocardial disease condition, contractile state, heart rate, and vascular loading; (2) to determine if a standard normalized E(t) curve could be applied to yield reliable ESPVR estimates from single-beat data; (3) to compare the new approach to existing single-beat estimation methods; and (4) to test the feasibility of noninvasive application of the new method.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Patient Groups
Data were analyzed from 87 patients: 15 with normal hearts and 72 with varying forms of chronic heart disease. Patient age ranged from 38 to 80 years (mean, 58). Control subjects were referred for cardiac catheterization to assess atypical chest pain and had normal ECGs, coronary angiograms, contrast ventriculography, and echocardiograms. Nineteen patients had HCM: 4 with familial disease and 15 with acquired disease associated with chronic hypertension and presenting with congestive symptoms. Seventeen patients had dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM): 14 nonischemic and 3 ischemic. Seven additional patients had dilated hearts with reduced ejection fraction (EF) as the result of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular aneurysm (ANE). Last, 29 patients had coronary artery disease (CAD) but normal baseline ventricular function.

The patient group reflected a broad range of baseline contractility (E_es, 0.5 to 4.9 mm Hg/mL), EF (16% to 87%), chamber size (EDV, 47 to 496 mL), heart rate (47 to 159 min^-1), end-systolic pressures (84 to 205 mm Hg), and end-diastolic pressures (1 to 47 mm Hg). Hemodynamic characteristics for each group are provided in Table 1. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and the protocols were approved by The Johns Hopkins Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Hemodynamic Characteristics of Patient Groups

Procedures
Patients were premedicated with benzodiazepam (5 to 10 mg) and diphenhydramine (25 to 50 mg). After routine coronary angiography, left ventriculography, and right heart catheterization, PV relations were determined by conductance catheter technique²¹ combined with transient inferior vena caval balloon obstruction. Details of this procedure have been previously described.^{5 22} Briefly, a 7F volume catheter (Webster Labs, Millar, or Sentron) was introduced via a femoral artery, advanced to the LV apex under fluoroscopic guidance, and connected to a stimulator-microprocessor (Sigma-V, Leycom, or VCU, Cardiac Pacemakers Inc) to generate a volume signal. This signal was calibrated so that mean PV loop width matched stroke volume (SV) derived by thermodilution (cardiac output/heart rate) and EF matched that obtained by contrast ventriculography. A 2F micromanometer catheter (SPC-320 Millar) was placed within the distal lumen of the conductance catheter to measure chamber pressure.

Conventional measurement of the ESPVR from multiple PV loops was made with the use of a 7F balloon catheter (SP-9168, Cordis) to transiently obstruct inferior vena cava inflow. This resulted in transient preload reduction with little baroreflex, providing typically 10 or more beats at varying preloads. In several studies, heart rate was altered by atrial pacing, while in others, dobutamine (5 to 10 µg/kg per minute), verapamil (5 to 10 mg), esmolol (1 to 3 mg/kg bolus+0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg per minute continuous IV), or an experimental inotropic agent, OPC-18790 (5 to 10 µg/kg per minute),⁵ was infused intravenously to alter inotropic state. Data were digitalized at 200 Hz with the use of custom software and analyzed off-line.

ESPVR Determination From Multiple Loops
The reference or "gold standard" ESPVR was derived from multiple variably preloaded cardiac cycles²² shown by the example in Fig 1A. Points of maximal pressure/(volume-V_o), where V_o was the ESPVR volume-axis intercept, were calculated for each beat in the series by the use of an iterative method to measure V_o.^{3 23} Data were fit by orthogonal regression²⁴ yielding a multiple-beat ESPVR slope (E_es(MB)) and intercept (V_o(MB)). This regression minimizes the perpendicular distance between the data points and the regression line rather than assuming dependent/independent variable assignments.

View larger version (16K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. A, ESPVR measured from multiple cardiac cycles. PV loops are generated at gradually reduced preloads, and points of maximal [P/(V-Vo)] ratio determined and fit to yield the ESPVR. B, Single-beat ESPVR estimation. Two points are selected from the loop: at end systole (t=tmax) and at time t=tN (time normalized to tmax). Assuming a constant volume intercept [Vo(SB)], the slopes of lines connecting these two points with Vo are Emax(SB) and E(tN), respectively. For a given ratio of E(tN)/Emax(SB) [ie, EN(tN)], one can solve for a unique Vo(SB) to yield this ratio, and from Vo(SB), one derives Emax(SB).

Normalized Elastance Curve: E_N(t_N)
To derive the normalized time-varying elastance curve, PV data from 3 to 5 sequential steady-state beats were signal-averaged to yield a PV loop. Time-varying elastance [E(t)] was defined as the instantaneous ratio of P(t)/[V(t)-V_o(MB)]. The maximal value of E(t) [E_max(SB)] and the time to achieve E_max(SB) referenced from the R wave of the ECG (t_max) were both determined. The normalized E(t) function was then defined as

(E1)

where

(E2)

To combine E_N(t_N) relations, each curve was resampled at 200 equispaced intervals by linear interpolation and the results averaged for each patient and/or hemodynamic group. The mean E_N(t_N) curve was the average of data from 72 randomly selected loops from 52 patients (12 normal, 12 HCM, 9 DCM, 12 CAD, and 7 ANE), with several patients providing more than one condition (ie, altered heart rate or contractility).

Single-Beat Estimation of ESPVR
The new method for single-beat ESPVR estimation is schematically shown in Fig 1B. For each steady-state cardiac cycle, t_max (the time from R wave to maximal P/V ratio) was determined and time coordinates transformed to normalized time t_N (by Equation 2). PV data were then measured at time t_N[P(t_N) and V(t_N)] and t_max[P(t_max), V(t_max)], with linear interpolation as needed. The ESPVR estimate was based on two assumptions: (1) that the E(t) model was linear and (2) that the volume-axis intercept [V_o(SB)] was constant for a given cardiac cycle. Chamber elastance at time t_N was

(E3)

and elastance at time t_max was

(E4)

From Equation 1, the ratio of E(t_N)/E_max(SB) equaled E_N(t_N). Thus, combining Equations 1, 3, and 4, we obtained

(E5)

where P_N(t_N)=P(t_N)/P(t_max). Once V_o(SB) was calculated, E_max(SB) was determined from Equation 4.

A modification of this method used an iterative procedure to estimate t_max. As noted above, t_max was first derived assuming V_o=0; however, once a V_o(SB) estimate was calculated, t_max could be redetermined at the time of maximal P/(V-V_o(SB)), and then Equations 3 through 5 recalculated, yielding a new V_o(SB). This process could be repeated until successive V_o(SB) estimates were 1 mL from each other. We tested whether this iterative method improved the predictive accuracy of the method.

Validation of Single-Beat ESPVR Estimation
Single-beat estimates for both E_max(SB) and V_o(SB) were compared with corresponding parameters derived from multiple-beat ESPVR analysis [E_es(MB) and V_o(MB)]. This comparison was made between the same loops used to generate the average E_N(t_N) curve as well as in a second independent set of data from 35 additional patients. This second group also reflected a broad range of cardiac diseases and included data from several patients before and after inotropic intervention. Thus, comparisons were made for a total of 126 conditions measured in 87 patients.

To determine if the new single-beat estimation accurately indexed acute contractility change induced by inotropic agents, E_max(SB) was compared with E_es(MB) in 21 patients who received dobutamine (n=5), OPC-18790 (n=5), esmolol (n=9), or verapamil (n=2). To test whether the single-beat E_max(SB) estimate was influenced by loading changes, individual cycles at varying preloads measured during IVC occlusion were subjected to single-beat analysis. Beat-to-beat variability of E_max(SB) and comparisons of these estimates to E_es(MB) were made. This analysis was performed in a random subset of 18 patients (7 normal, 3 HCM, 5 CAD, and 3 DCM).

Last, E_max(SB) estimates were compared with those obtained by the previously reported single-beat method of Sunagawa et al.¹⁷ For each steady-state beat, pressure data between EDP and dP/dt_max and between dP/dt_min and the point where pressure declined to EDP were fit by nonlinear regression to the formula

(E6)

where P_iso was the estimated peak isovolumic pressure. For this analysis, EDP was equal to the pressure at which dP/dt exceeded 10% of dP/dt_max. E_max,iso was then calculated from

(E7)

Both E_max,iso and E_max(SB) were then compared with the multiple-beat derived E_es(MB) value.

E_max(SB) Estimation From Aortic Pressure Data
By selecting t_N to occur at the onset of cardiac ejection, then V(t_N)=EDV, and P(t_N)=AoP_DIA, the aortic diastolic pressure. The end-systolic pressure, or P(t_max), was estimated from arterial systolic pressure by

(E8)

as previously validated,²⁵ while V(t_max) was approximated by ESV. Thus, from arterial systolic and diastolic pressures, and values for ESV and EDV, V_o(SB) could also be estimated by

(E9)

and

(E10)

For this analysis, t_max was the time between the R wave of the ECG and the time when arterial pressure declined by 10% of peak. t_N was the normalized time at the upstroke of arterial pressure (ie, diastolic pressure). E_N(t_N) was determined at this time from the averaged E_N(t_N) curve, and this value was then inserted into Equation 9. Comparisons were made between E_max(SB) estimated from arterial pressure analysis and the corresponding estimate based on PV data (Equation 4) in 24 randomly selected patients.

Statistics
Data are presented as mean±SD. Single-beat estimates were compared with multiple-beat measures of resting ESPVR slope and intercept by linear regression. Similar analysis was used to test the accuracy of changes in E_max(SB) induced by inotropic intervention and for the comparison of PV loop and arterial pressure-derived estimates. Load dependence was tested with the use of a repeated-measures ANOVA and coefficient of variation.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Normalized Elastance Curve: E_N(t_N)
Fig 2 displays averaged E_N(t_N) curves (solid line ±1 SD-dashed line) for each patient group. There was relatively little variance about the mean for each E_N(t_N) curve among the groups, particularly early in contraction (before the first inflection point). Furthermore, the mean E_N(t_N) curves were quite similar between groups despite marked differences in disease condition, afterload, preload, and contractility. This is highlighted in Fig 2H, in which the mean curves are superimposed. E_N(t_N) curves before and after positive inotropic stimulation (Fig 2F, E_es from 1.5±0.5 to 2.7±0.9) or atrial pacing (Fig 2G, heart rate at 76±10, 99±9, and 130±12 min^-1) were virtually identical. A combined averaged E_N(t_N) curve based on all these data is shown in Fig 3. Again, the least variance occurred in early contraction (isovolumic phase), while the greatest variability was during late relaxation. This is similar to findings reported from isolated canine heart studies.^{1 9}

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Normalized elastance [EN(tN)] curves for each patient group and/or test condition. Solid line displays the mean curve; dashed line ±1 SD. A, Normal hearts; B, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM); C, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM); D, coronary artery disease with normal LV function (CAD); E, CAD with prior infarction and ventricular aneurysm (ANEURYSM); F, EN(tN) before (solid line) and after (dashed line) intravenous dobutamine (DOBUTAMINE); G, EN(tN) before and after atrial pacing at 90 to 120 min-1 (dashed line), 120 to 150 min-1 (dotted line), and normal sinus baseline 70 min-1 (solid line); and H, mean EN(tN) curves from each group superimposed (ALL).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Averaged normalized elastance curve [EN(tN)]. Solid line shows mean and dashed lines ±1 SD. There was little variance in the curve during the early phase of cardiac contraction. Lack of variance at end systole follows from the normalization process.

Single-Beat ESPVR Estimation
On the basis of the consistency of E_N(t_N), we then tested the single-beat ESPVR estimation method. While Equations 4 and 5 yielded V_o(SB) and E_max(SB) estimates at any time t_N, it was preferable to select t_N when the physiological variance of E_N(t_N) was small, ie, in early contraction (also see Fig 3). Equation 5 also revealed V_o(SB) to be a hyperbolic function of E_N(t_N) with a vertical asymptote at E_N(t_N)=P_N(t_N). If t_N was selected near this time, small errors could lead to instability of the V_o(SB) estimate. An optimal t_N could be theoretically deduced to minimize both physiological and mathematical variances. As demonstrated in the "Appendix," this value was between 0.25 and 0.35.

Fig 4A displays scatterplots of single-beat E_max(SB) and V_o(SB) estimates versus corresponding values from multiple-beat ESPVRs (E_es(MB) and V_o(MB)). The single-beat estimates were the average of results using t_N=0.25, 0.30, and 0.35. Both sets of parameters were highly correlated, with regressions given by E_es(MB)=1.01xE_max(SB)+0.03, r=.903, SEE=0.42; and V_o(MB)=0.87xV_o(SB)-1.4, r=.91, SEE=27.3 (both P<.001). These slopes and intercepts were not significantly different from unity and zero, respectively. The lower plots display differences between single- and multiple-beat ESPVR slope and intercept estimates. There was a tendency for the E_max(SB) to underestimate E_es(MB) (r=.46, P<.001), whereas this was not observed for V_o(SB) (r=.1, P=NS).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. A, Scatterplots comparing the single-beat estimated ESPVR slope (Emax(SB)) and intercept (Vo(SB)) to similar measurements obtained from multiple-beat ESPVR analysis (Ees(MB) and Vo(MB)). Linear regression is shown by solid line; dashed lines show 95% prediction interval. Open circles are data from the 72 patients used to generate the average EN(tN) curve. Closed circles are from a second independent group of 35 patients. B, Difference between single-beat (SB) and multiple-beat (MB) values of ESPVR slope and intercept plotted as a function of the multiple-beat value. See text for details.

Analysis with the iterative method to update t_max and thus V_o(SB) calculations (see "Methods") yielded virtually the same results, with slightly lower slopes and greater scatter: (E_es(MB)=0.97xE_max(SB)+0.12, r=.88, SEE=0.46; and V_o(MB)=0.80xV_o(SB)-1.8, r=.90, SEE=28.3 (both P<.001). The E_max(SB)-E_es(MB) difference plot also did not change, revealing a slight underestimation by the single-beat method at high elastances (slope=-0.197, versus -0.20 without iteration). Thus, despite its potential theoretic benefit, the iteration procedure did not improve ESPVR estimation, suggesting that small errors about t_max [and thus P_(tmax) and V_(tmax)] were not a major source of error in the estimation process.

Table 2 provides data for analyses using t_N values other than those between 0.25 and 0.35. As predicted in the "Appendix," these other ranges of t_N yielded greater variance, with somewhat lower correlation coefficients, and higher SEE for the single- and multiple-beat ESPVR parameter regressions.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis

Sensitivity of Single-Beat Estimate to Inotropic Change
Fig 5 compares single-beat versus multiple-beat estimates of E_max change due to inotropic interventions. Fig 5A displays example pressure-volume data with dashed lines corresponding to multiple-beat ESPVRs. The drug intervention primarily induced a change in the relation slope. The solid lines are corresponding single-beat ESPVR estimates based on the resting (high) preload beat and were similar to the multiple-beat ESPVR. Fig 5B shows group results for E_max(SB) versus E_es(MB). There was a strong direct correlation (r=.92, P<.0001), with a slope not statistically different from 1.0 and intercept not different from zero.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. Influence of acute inotropic change on Ees(MB) and Emax(SB) (MB indicates multiple-beat; SB, single-beat). A, Example of PV data before and after an acute decline in contractility. Dashed lines are the multibeat ESPVR and solid lines the single-beat estimations using beats at the highest EDV. The relations were similar before and after inotropic change. B, Group data comparing Emax(SB) versus Ees(MB), displaying a strong linear correlation passing through the origin. OPC indicates OPC-18790, an experimental inotropic agent.

Sensitivity of Single-Beat Estimate to Preload Change
Fig 6 shows the results of tests for the influence of loading change on E_max(SB) estimation. E_max(SB) was determined from PV loops at initial (high) and reduced (after IVC obstruction) preload volume from a single multiple-beat ESPVR. Fig 6A displays example PV loop data, with beats at high and low EDV highlighted in bold. The two sets of single-beat ESPVR predictions from these two beats are displayed by a dashed line and were very similar to the multiple-beat ESPVR (solid line). Fig 6B displays time plots of the same data. The lower tracing shows the single-beat E_max(SB) estimate derived from each beat in the series, revealing high reproducibility despite marked changes in chamber loading. The solid line is the multiple-beat derived E_es(MB).

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. Lack of loading sensitivity of single-beat Emax(SB) estimate. A, Multiple PV loops measured during transient IVC inflow obstruction were used to determine the ESPVR (solid line). Two beats were selected from this sequence at high and low preload and Emax(SB) calculated for each (dashed lines). They were similar to Ees(MB). B, Time plots corresponding to A. The lowest tracing shows Emax(SB) for each beat in the sequence, displaying reproducibility of the estimates despite changes in chamber load. The solid line reflects Ees(MB). C, Group data comparing Ees(MB) with Emax(SB) from high and low preload (bold loops of A).

For the group data, the average coefficient of variation (100xSD/mean) of repeated single-beat estimates at varying preloads was 9.4±4%. Comparisons of E_es(MB) to E_max(SB) at high and low EDV in all 18 patients (Fig 6C) revealed no significant differences between mean values (2.31+1.12, 2.36+0.99, and 2.28+1.09 mm Hg/mL), and values in individual subjects were also generally similar.

Comparison of New Single-Beat Estimation Technique to Prior Methods
Fig 7A displays a comparison of E_max(SB) determined by the new method to the single-beat E_max,iso estimation based on the method of Sunagawa et al.¹⁷ Both estimates are plot versus E_es(MB). In 36 of 126 loops (28%), Equation 6 predicted P_iso (isovolumic pressure) that was lower than P_es, resulting in a nonsensical (negative) ESPVR. Interestingly, this occurred more often in failing hearts (HCM, DCM, ANE) than in controls (38% versus 12.8%, P=.002 by Fisher's exact test). Data from the remaining 88 loops are shown in Fig 7A. E_max,iso generally overestimated E_es(MB) (regression slope of 0.53, intercept of 0.73 mm Hg/mL), in comparison to a slope and offset of 1.01 and 0.008 for the new method (P<.001 by ANCOVA), and displayed a larger variance (SEE=0.57 versus 0.41 for E_N(t_N) method).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 7. Left, Comparison of new Emax(SB) method with the Emax,iso method proposed by Sunagawa et al.17 Emax,iso tended to overestimate measured Ees, and there was more scatter in the regression. Right, Comparison of Pes/Ves ratio to Ees(MB). There was a poor correlation, with wide scatter about the true values. Low Pes/Ves ratios generally occurred in dilated hearts, which may or may not have had low Ees(MB) values. High ratios were observed in smaller hearts but overestimated measured values.

Another often-used and simpler E_es estimation is the ratio of P_es/V_es, assuming V_o=0. Fig 7B displays this ratio versus measured E_es(MB). There were marked discrepancies between actual E_es(MB) and the P_es/V_es ratio, particularly at low values, with overestimation of E_es(MB) by P_es/V_es at higher values.

Single-Beat Estimation of E_es From Aortic Pressure
Prior analysis ("Appendix" and Table 2) indicated that a t_N of 0.25 to 0.35 was optimal for the single-beat ESPVR estimation. This timing was very close to that for aortic valve opening (t_N at onset of ejection averaged 0.258±0.035, n=18), supporting the feasibility of using Equations 9 and 10 to estimate ESPVR parameters from arterial pressure and ESV, EDV data. Fig 8 displays the results of this analysis, plotting E_max(SB) calculated from Equation 10 versus the estimate measured from PV loop data (Equation 4, the latter assessed at t_N=0.25). These estimates were nearly identical, with the regression given by y=0.993x-0.004, r=.982, P<.0001, SEE=0.19 mm Hg/mL.

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 8. Comparison of Emax estimations derived from arterial pressures and end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (x-axis) or from PV loop data as previously presented (y-axis). The two estimates were highly correlated, given by Emax(SB)-PV=0.99xEmax(SB)-AOP-0.004, r=.982, P<.001, SEE=0.19. SB indicates single-beat; LVP, left ventricular pressure; and AOP, aortic pressure.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
This is the first study to compare normalized time-varying elastance curves [E_N(t_N)] of human left ventricles reflecting a broad spectrum of underlying cardiac diseases and/or operating conditions. We found that the E_N(t_N) curves were surprisingly similar among hearts, particularly during early contraction. This finding supported the new method of single-beat ESPVR estimation, which displayed sensitivity to contractile change but was little influenced by preload change, was an improvement over prior methods, and could be adapted for noninvasive analysis. These results should enhance the applicability of ESPVR analysis to clinical medicine for assessing acute and chronic changes in contractile function due to therapeutic interventions and for predicting hemodynamic responses to therapy.³

Assumptions and Implications of Consistent E_N(t_N)
The new single-beat ESPVR estimation method was based on the time-varying elastance model of cardiac contraction, assuming that there was a consistent E_N(t_N), independent of heart rate, loading conditions, or contractility that could be scaled by both amplitude (E_max) and time (t_max) for a given ventricle. This also implied linear elastance relations (including the ESPVR) that intersected at a common volume intercept. These are admittedly oversimplifications, as studies have revealed that ESPVRs can be nonlinear,^{10 11 12} can be influenced by afterload,^{13 14 15 16 17 18 26 27} and that V_o may change during contraction.²⁷ Load-dependence of E_max is thought to be due to shortening deactivation,^{28 29} internal resistance,²⁶ and length-dependent myofilament calcium sensitivity.^{30 31} Thus, it would seem somewhat surprising that E_N(t_N) curves from patients with widely varying cardiac diseases and structural adaptations would be so consistent or that the single-beat estimation would yield such reasonable predictions. However, by normalizing the time-varying elastance curve by time as well as amplitude, effects of ejection on t_max, such as recently analyzed by Burkhoff et al,¹⁵ were less influential. The resulting E_N(t_N) curves, particularly in the early phase, probably reflected myocardial properties related to actin-myosin interaction and the kinetics of stiffness generation. Differences in myofibril protein isoforms and protein kinetics among species might alter E_N(t_N), so one should not assume that the human E_N(t_N) curve directly applies to other animals.

Another potential explanation for the consistent E_N(t_N) curves in patients is that human vascular impedance load is more constrained than that typically used in isolated heart and muscle studies. Unlike muscle preparations in which shortening is abruptly released after a brief isometric contraction²⁸ or in isolated hearts in which ejecting and isovolumic contractions are often contrasted,¹⁵ real impedance varies much less among humans even with various diseases, thereby limiting effects of ejection history on t_max and E_max. There was more variance in E_N(t_N) during relaxation, consistent with an enhanced influence of load in this period. Nonetheless, the curves were similar during the initial isovolumic contraction phase, so that during this period, a simple time-varying elastance model became an adequate descriptor of contraction. This finding is supported by prior animal data from Little and Freeman,²⁷ who found that the normalized E(t) curve accurately predicted the early isovolumic pressure rise. Consistency of the isovolumic phase of E_N(t_N) also formed the basis for relations between the derivative of LV pressure and EDV³² and between chamber contraction and relaxation times.³³ One caveat is that E_N(t_N) in the present study was derived from beats with an isovolumic contraction phase, and this curve should not be extended to hearts with significant mitral regurgitation without additional testing. These tests could not be made with the conductance catheter, since substantial mitral regurgitation can induce large signal artifacts.

Last, it should be reiterated that ESPVR linearity was implicit in the present method, whereas these relations can be curvilinear.^{10 11 12} Thus, V_o(SB) may have underestimated the true "V_o" (ie, volume intercept at zero pressure) had it been directly measurable, and this probably explains apparent "negative" V_o values that were often derived. V_o(SB) values did correlate well with V_o(MB), which reflected ESPVR behavior in the physiological loading range. This is significant, since V_o(MB) was derived from many beats (average >10) with a net 25 and 50 mm Hg change in P_es. The similarity between V_o(SB) and V_o(MB) is important, since it suggests that the time course of elastance for cycles within the physiological loading range can predict local "linear" ESPVR behavior in that range. This similarly also supports the notion that nonlinear physiology rather than volume-catheter signal artifacts during IVC obstruction most likely explained negative V_o(MB) values, since V_o(SB) would not be influenced by these artifacts. ESPVR nonlinearity is rarely observed clinically, and we could not test whether beats taken from a different, steeper portion of the ESPVR would yield higher E_max(SB) estimates. Nonetheless, we found that the behavior of the ventricle could be predicted over a physiologically relevant loading range from a single beat.

Comparison to Other Single-Beat Estimation Methods
Investigators have been driven by the desire to simplify the loading procedures required to measure the ESPVR and avoid the need for continuous LV volume data through the use of single-beat E_max estimation methods. The simplest, most frequently used method is to ignore V_o and report the ratio of P_es/V_es.^{32 33} This is inadequate (as shown in Fig 7B), since there are marked differences in V_o, with often large nonzero intercepts in patients with infarction or dilated cardiomyopathy^{5 7 8} and apparent negative values in patients with high contractility and presumably nonlinear ESPVRs.

An alternative method first proposed by Igarashi and Suga¹⁸ used abrupt occlusion of the aorta during isovolumic contraction to determine peak isovolumetric pressure. The ejecting portion of the PV loop was constructed by integrating aortic flow and synchronizing the result with LV pressure. E_max was the slope of the tangent to this curve anchored at the peak isovolumic PV point. Sunagawa et al¹⁷ modified this method by showing that peak isovolumic pressure could be mathematically predicted by curve-fitting isovolumic data from an ejecting beat to a cosine function. Takeuchi et al²⁰ tested the method in 16 patients with normal EF and found reasonable correlations to E_es derived from three variably loaded beats, with an SEE of 1.2 mm Hg/mL/m². There was no assessment of the accuracy for indexing inotropic change, nor were hearts with significant LV dysfunction evaluated. Some of these limitations were addressed in an animal study,¹⁹ but again only in normal hearts.

We found several weaknesses in this method. First, it yielded nonsensical results in 28% of the cases (P_es<P_iso, ie, negative E_max), this being three times more common in patients with LV disease. Second, the method generally overestimated directly measured values. Thus, the cosine fit would not appear to apply to all hearts, in particular those with chronic chamber dysfunction. Reliance on data during relaxation (which is more sensitive to load) as well as contraction may contribute to this limitation. The new method yielded more reliable estimates over the full range of heart conditions, used a physiologically based model [E_N(t_N)] rather than arbitrary curve fits, and could be used without need for left ventricular pressure data.

Noninvasive ESPVR Estimation
Noninvasive applicability of the new single-beat ESPVR estimation method would certainly be an attractive feature. In addition to predicting V_o and E_max, noninvasive assessment of ventricular-arterial interaction could be determined by coupling E_max to estimates of arterial elastance (E_a).^{7 8 24 34} Chamber volumes for the estimation might be obtained by two-dimensional or three-dimensional echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, or nuclear ventriculography, whereas arterial cuff pressures could provide diastolic and end-systolic pressures. Timing of the onset of ejection relative to end systole could be obtained noninvasively by Doppler echocardiography or from arterial pulse tracings generated by tonometry.^{35 36} The present study showed only that with accurate measurements at the designated time points, noninvasive data could substitute, and thus a noninvasive approach seems feasible. However, there are admittedly considerable errors in noninvasive volume and pressure measurements, and it remains to be determined whether such errors prove to be critical limitations for ESPVR estimation.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Equation 3 from "Methods" predicts V_O of the ESPVR from the relation

(EA1)

where P_N(t_N)=P(t_N)/P_es. This provides a prediction of V_o for any value of t_N and E_N(t_N). However, the E_N(t_N) curve obtained from measured pooled clinical data (Fig 3) displayed physiological and statistical deviation that varied with the cardiac cycle phase. Choices of E_N(t_N) at times with the least variance would likely yield more reliable and accurate estimates. Fig 9 displays a plot of the standard deviation (SD) of the E_N(t_N) curve as a function of t_N, ranging between 0 and 1.0. SD was used as a measure of the instantaneous variance [dE_N(t_N)] as a function of t_N. The variance was highest near late ejection and zero (by definition) at t_N=1.0.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 9. Analysis of optimizing physiological and mathematical stability of the VO estimation by the new single-beat method. A, Plot of the standard deviation of pooled EN(tN) curve (from Fig 3) as a function of tN. This provides a measure of dEN(tN). B, Plot of [dVO/EN(tN)] versus tN (Equation A2), showing the sensitivity of VO to changes in normalized elastance as a function of the time point tN. C, Result of multiplying curves in A and B to yield plot of dVO as a function of tN. This curve reveals the minimal variance in VO estimate occurs when tN is chosen between 0.25 and 0.35 (stippled area). This forms the basis for selecting these times for the single-beat ESPVR estimation. D, Plot of derivative of normalized elastance curve (Fig 3) versus tN. This reveals a plateau during the time period extending from tN=0.25 to 0.6. This overlaps with the times found for minimizing dVO and further supports using data in this time window, since errors in timing are less likely to yield large differences in the value of EN(tN) entered into Equation 4.

In addition to this physiological variance, there was mathematical-based variability in the sensitivity of the V_o estimate as a function of the value of E_N(t_N). This could be shown by differentiating Equation A1 with respect to E_N(t_N):

(EA2)

Fig 9B displays this equation as a function of t_N and shows that this sensitivity is least during the early-mid phase of the cycle.

Multiplying the two curves shown in Fig 9A and 9B yields a plot of dV_O as a function of t_N (9C), since dV_O=dE_N(t_N)xdV_O/dE_N(t_N), ie, this indicates the variance about a V_O estimate as a function of the time point (t_N) chosen from the E_N(t_N) curve. This plot reveals a minimal variance when t_N ranges between 0.25 to 0.35. This result is consistent with the data presented in Table 2, which shows the best correlation (ie, smallest SEE) between single-beat estimates and multiple-beat estimates for V_O and E_es when t_N was in this range.

Last, errors in the timing point t_N could result in substantial variation in the V_O estimate if the E_N(t_N) curve was itself rapidly changing at that particular time. This could be determined from the derivative of the E_N(t_N) curve, which is shown in Fig 9D. This reveals a portion of the curve with a rapidly changing slope followed by a portion where the slope is reasonably constant. It is in this latter range (stippled area) that calculation of V_O was less likely to be affected by timing measurement errors. Relevant values of E_N(t_N) between t_N of 0.2 and 0.35 for use with Equations 3 and 4 are provided in Table 3. In addition, a 12-term Fourier series fit to

(EA3)

is given in Table 4.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. Relevant Values

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 4. Fourier Series Fit to EN(tN) (Full Period [2] tN=3.46, Amplitude=1.0)

	Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms

 

EDP = end-diastolic pressure EDV = end-diastolic volume ESPVR = end-systolic pressure-volume relation ESV = end-systolic volume HCM = hypertrophic cardiomyopathy IVC = inferior vena cava LV = left ventricular PV = pressure-volume

	Acknowledgments

 
This study was supported by National Institute of Aging Grant AG-12249. Dr Kass is an Established Investigator of the American Heart Association. Dr Senzaki is a visiting research fellow from the University of Tokyo (Japan). Dr Chen is a visiting fellow from the Division of Cardiology, Veterans General Hospital–Taipei and National Yang-Ming University, ROC. The authors gratefully thank Drs W. Lowell Maughan, Chih-Tai Ting, Chun-Peng Liu, Mau-Song Chang, Peter H. Pak, Amit Nussbacher, Sigamitzu Arie, and Giovanni Belotti for their valuable assistance in performing the pressure-volume studies and Dr Erez Nevo for his constructive comments and critique.

Received March 5, 1996; revision received June 11, 1996; accepted June 17, 1996.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

1. Suga H, Sagawa K. Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the exercised, supported canine left ventricle. Circ Res. 1974;35:117-126.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
2. Sodums MT, Badke FR, Starling MR, Little WC, O'Rourke RA. Evaluation of left ventricular contractile performance utilizing end-systolic pressure-volume relationships in conscious dogs. Circ Res. 1984;54:731-739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. Kass DA, Maughan WL. From Emax to pressure-volume relations: a broader view. Circulation. 1988;77:1203-1212.[Free Full Text]
   
4. Murray DR, Freeman GL. Tumor necrosis factor- induces a biphasic effect on myocardial contractility in conscious dogs. Circ Res. 1996;78:154-160.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
5. Feldman MD, Pak PH, Wu CC, Haber HL, Heesch CM, Bergin JD, Powers ER, Coward TD, Johnson W, Feldman AM, Kass DA. Acute cardiovascular effects of OPC-18790 in patients with congestive heart failure: time- and dose-dependence analysis based on pressure-volume relations. Circulation. 1996;93:474-483.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
6. Dauterman K, Pak PH, Nussbacher A, Arie S, Liu CP, Kass DA. Contribution of external forces to left ventricle diastolic pressure: implications for the clinical use of the Frank-Starling law. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:737-742.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
7. Ishihara H, Yokota M, Sobue T, Saito H. Relation between ventriculoarterial coupling and myocardial energetics in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:406-416.[Abstract]
   
8. Kameyama T, Asanoi H, Ishizaka S, Sasayama S. Ventricular load optimization by unloading therapy in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:199-207.[Abstract]
   
9. Suga H, Sagawa K, Shoukas AA. Load independence of the instantaneous pressure-volume ratio of canine left ventricle and effects of epinephrine and heart rate on the ratio. Circ Res. 1973;32:314-322.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Burkhoff D, Sugiura S, Yue DT, Sagawa K. Contractility-dependent curvilinearity of end-systolic pressure-volume relations. Am J Physiol. 1987;252:H1218-H1227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
11. Kass DA, Beyar R, Heard M, Lankford E, Heard M, Maughan WL, Sagawa K. Influence of contractile state on curvilinearity of in situ end-systolic pressure-volume relation. Circulation. 1989;79:167-178.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
12. Noda T, Cheng CP, Peterson T, De Tombe PP, Little WC. Curvilinearity of LV end-systolic pressure-volume and dP/dtmax-end-diastolic volume relations. Am J Physiol. 1993;265:H910-H917.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
13. Freeman GL, Little WC, O'Rourke RA. The effect of vasoactive agents on the left ventricular end-systolic pressure-volume relation in closed chest dogs. Circulation. 1986;74:1107-1113.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
14. Baan J, Van Der Velde ET. Sensitivity of left ventricular end-systolic pressure-volume relation to type of loading intervention in dogs. Circ Res. 1988;62:1247-1258.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
15. Burkhoff D, De Tombe PP, Hunter WC. Impact of ejection on magnitude and time course of ventricular pressure-generating capacity. Am J Physiol. 1993;265:H899-H909.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
16. Burkhoff D, de Tombe PP, Hunter WC, Kass DA. Contractile strength and mechanical efficiency of left ventricle are enhanced by physiological afterload. Am J Physiol. 1991;260(Heart Circ Physiol. 29):H569-H578.
    
17. Sunagawa K, Yamada A, Senda Y, Kikuchi Y, Nakamura M, Shibahara T, Nose Y. Estimation of the hydromotive source pressure from ejecting beats of the left ventricle. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1980:27:299-305.
    
18. Igarashi Y, Suga H. Assessment of slope of end-systolic pressure-volume line of in situ dog heart. Am J Physiol. 1986;250:H685-H692.
    
19. Nakamoto T, Cheng CP, Santamore WP, Iizuka M. Estimation of left ventricular elastance without altering preload or afterload in the conscious dog. Cardiovasc Res. 1993;27:868-873.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
20. Takeuchi M, IgarashY, Tomimoto S, Odake M, Hayashi T, Tsukamoto T, Hata K, Takaoka H, Fukuzaki H. Single-beat estimation of the slope of the end-systolic pressure-volume relation in the human left ventricle. Circulation. 1991;83:202-212.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
21. Baan J, van der Velde E, de Bruin H, Smeenk G, Keeps J, van Dijk A, Temmerman D, Senden J, Buis B. Continuous measurement of left ventricular volume in animals and man by conductance catheter. Circulation. 1984;70:812-823.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
22. Kass DA, Midei M, Graves W, Brinker JA, Maughan WL. Use of a conductance (volume) catheter and transient inferior vena caval occlusion for rapid determination of pressure-volume relationships in man. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1988;15:192-202.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
    
23. Kono A, Maughan WL, Sunagawa K, Kallman C, Sagawa K, Weisfeldt ML. Left ventricular end-ejection pressure and peak pressure to estimate the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship. Circulation. 1984;70:1057-1065.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
24. Malinvaud E. Statistical Methods of Econometrics. Chicago, Ill: Rand McNally and Co; 1966:7-11.
    
25. Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, Liu CP, Maughan WL, Chang MS, Kass DA. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans. Circulation. 1992;86:513-521.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
26. Shroff SG, Janicki JS, Weber T. Evidence and quantification of left ventricular systolic resistance. Am J Physiol. 1985;249:H353-H370.
    
27. Little WC, Freeman GL. Description of LV pressure-volume relations by time-varying elastance and source resistance. Am J Physiol. 1987;253(Heart Circ Physiol. 22):H83-H90.
    
28. Bodem R, Sonnenblick EH. Deactivation of contraction by quick releases in the isolated papillary muscle of the cat: effects of lever damping, caffeine, and tetanization. Circ Res. 1974;34:214-225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
29. Hunter WC. End-systolic pressure as a balance between opposing effects of ejection. Circ Res. 1989;64:265-275.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
30. Lakatta EG, Jewell BR. Length-dependent activation: its effect on the length-tension relation in cat ventricular muscle. Circ Res. 1977;40:251-257.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
31. Kentish JC, ter Keurs HEDJ, Ricciardi L, Bucx JJJ, Nobel MIN. Comparison between the sarcomere length-force relations of intact and skinned trabeculae from rat right ventricle. Circ Res. 1986;58:755-768.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
32. Little WC. The left ventricular dP/dt_max–end-diastolic volume relation in closed-chest dogs. Circ Res. 1985;56:808-815.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
33. Little WC, Rassi A, Freeman GL. Comparison of effects of dobutamine and ouabain on left ventricular contraction and relaxation in closed-chest dogs. J Clin Invest. 1987;80:613-620.
    
34. Sunagawa K, Maughan WL, Burkhoff D, Sagawa K. Left ventricular interaction with arterial load studied in isolated canine ventricle. Am J Physiol. 1983;245:H773-H780.
    
35. Kelly R, Hayward C, Ganis J, Daley J, Avolio A, O'Rourke M. Noninvasive registration of the arterial pressure pulse waveform using high-fidelity applanation tonometry. J Vasc Med Biol. 1989;1:142-149.
    
36. Chen CH, Ting CT, Nussbacher A, Nevo E, Kass DA, Pak P, Wang SP, Chang MS, Yin FCP. Validation of carotid artery tonometry as a means of estimating augmentation index of ascending aortic pressure. Hypertension. 1996;27:168-175.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Zanon, S. Aggio, E. Baracca, G. Pastore, G. Corbucci, G. Boaretto, G. Braggion, C. Piergentili, G. Rigatelli, and L. Roncon Ventricular-arterial coupling in patients with heart failure treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: may we predict the long-term clinical response? Eur J Echocardiogr, June 18, 2008; (2008) jen184v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Shibata, J. L. Hastings, A. Prasad, Q. Fu, K. Okazaki, M. D. Palmer, R. Zhang, and B. D. Levine 'Dynamic' Starling mechanism: effects of ageing and physical fitness on ventricular-arterial coupling J. Physiol., April 1, 2008; 586(7): 1951 - 1962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Zhong, R.-S. Tan, D. N. Ghista, E. Y.-K. Ng, L.-P. Chua, and G. S. Kassab Validation of a novel noninvasive cardiac index of left ventricular contractility in patients Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 1, 2007; 292(6): H2764 - H2772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S.P. Lam, V. L. Roger, R. J. Rodeheffer, F. Bursi, B. A. Borlaug, S. R. Ommen, D. A. Kass, and M. M. Redfield Cardiac Structure and Ventricular-Vascular Function in Persons With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction From Olmsted County, Minnesota Circulation, April 17, 2007; 115(15): 1982 - 1990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. van Heusden, J. Gisolf, W. J. Stok, S. Dijkstra, and J. M. Karemaker Mathematical modeling of gravitational effects on the circulation: importance of the time course of venous pooling and blood volume changes in the lungs Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, November 1, 2006; 291(5): H2152 - H2165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]