We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Noninvasive determination of aortic input impedance and external left ventricular power output: a validation and repeatability study of a new technique.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1992 October
OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to test whether aortic input impedance and left ventricular power output can be accurately assessed noninvasively.
BACKGROUND: Aortic input impedance describes both the pulsatile and nonpulsatile artery load encountered by the left ventricle. Until now, this measure of afterload has only been determined by invasive techniques.
METHODS: The aortic pressure wave was estimated by recording the calibrated carotid artery pressure wave noninvasively with use of a micromanometer-tipped probe by the technique of applanation tonometry. Flow was determined with pulsed wave Doppler measurement of ascending aortic velocity profile and aortic diameter. In 18 subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization, invasive measurements were taken to assess the accuracy of noninvasive data. In 17 other subjects noninvasive measurements were taken on different days to assess the reproducibility of results.
RESULTS: Noninvasive pressure measurements correlated well with invasive data: systolic pressure (mm Hg), noninvasive 126 +/- 28 versus invasive 127 +/- 28, r = 0.96, p less than 0.001; diastolic pressure (mm Hg), noninvasive 71 +/- 10 versus invasive 66 +/- 7, r = 0.60, p less than 0.02; augmentation index (%), noninvasive 23.9 +/- 9.3 versus invasive 30.7 +/- 11.9, r = 0.87, p less than 0.001. Doppler-measured cardiac output was closely correlated with invasively measured flow (liters/min): Doppler, 5.3 +/- 1.2 versus invasive, 5.5 +/- 1.3, r = 0.98, p less than 0.001. Impedance and left ventricular power variables calculated from noninvasive and invasive techniques were also closely related: systemic vascular resistance (dynes.s.cm-5), noninvasive 1,479 +/- 488 versus invasive 1,502 +/- 498, r = 0.91, p less than 0.001; characteristic impedance (dynes.s.cm-5), noninvasive 137 +/- 52 versus invasive 136 +/- 79, r = 0.92, p less than 0.001; pulsatile power (mW), noninvasive 249 +/- 94 versus invasive 291 +/- 103, r = 0.91, p less than 0.001; mean power (mW), noninvasive 1,107 +/- 319 versus invasive 1,144 +/- 266, r = 0.93, p less than 0.001. Repeated measures of impedance variables and power output showed coefficients of variation of less than 9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of noninvasive impedance by this technique provides an accurate and repeatable assessment of mean and pulsatile cardiac load.
BACKGROUND: Aortic input impedance describes both the pulsatile and nonpulsatile artery load encountered by the left ventricle. Until now, this measure of afterload has only been determined by invasive techniques.
METHODS: The aortic pressure wave was estimated by recording the calibrated carotid artery pressure wave noninvasively with use of a micromanometer-tipped probe by the technique of applanation tonometry. Flow was determined with pulsed wave Doppler measurement of ascending aortic velocity profile and aortic diameter. In 18 subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization, invasive measurements were taken to assess the accuracy of noninvasive data. In 17 other subjects noninvasive measurements were taken on different days to assess the reproducibility of results.
RESULTS: Noninvasive pressure measurements correlated well with invasive data: systolic pressure (mm Hg), noninvasive 126 +/- 28 versus invasive 127 +/- 28, r = 0.96, p less than 0.001; diastolic pressure (mm Hg), noninvasive 71 +/- 10 versus invasive 66 +/- 7, r = 0.60, p less than 0.02; augmentation index (%), noninvasive 23.9 +/- 9.3 versus invasive 30.7 +/- 11.9, r = 0.87, p less than 0.001. Doppler-measured cardiac output was closely correlated with invasively measured flow (liters/min): Doppler, 5.3 +/- 1.2 versus invasive, 5.5 +/- 1.3, r = 0.98, p less than 0.001. Impedance and left ventricular power variables calculated from noninvasive and invasive techniques were also closely related: systemic vascular resistance (dynes.s.cm-5), noninvasive 1,479 +/- 488 versus invasive 1,502 +/- 498, r = 0.91, p less than 0.001; characteristic impedance (dynes.s.cm-5), noninvasive 137 +/- 52 versus invasive 136 +/- 79, r = 0.92, p less than 0.001; pulsatile power (mW), noninvasive 249 +/- 94 versus invasive 291 +/- 103, r = 0.91, p less than 0.001; mean power (mW), noninvasive 1,107 +/- 319 versus invasive 1,144 +/- 266, r = 0.93, p less than 0.001. Repeated measures of impedance variables and power output showed coefficients of variation of less than 9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of noninvasive impedance by this technique provides an accurate and repeatable assessment of mean and pulsatile cardiac load.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app