Part II of the Basics of PV loops: preload, coupling, afterload, ventricular dysfunction, and valvular disorders.
Big thanks to the team who helped put this together: @jayamj94 & @PSullivan000, with guest editor @RyanTedfordMD.
If you missed Part I, check it out ⬇️
- Preload is the stretching of cardiac myocytes prior to contraction (related to sarcomere length); it's measurable surrogate: ventricular end-diastolic pressure/volume.
- Δ in preload affect SV (width of PV loop), by the Frank-Starling mechanism. As preload ⬆️, SV (EDV-ESV) ⬆️.
When venous return to the heart is increased, the end-diastolic pressure and volume of the ventricles are increased, which stretches the sarcomeres, increasing their preload. In contrast, hypovolemia (i.e. hemorrhage) leads to less filling and shorter sarcomeres (reduced preload)
Remember, from PV Loops Part I, the way to assess ESPVR (and overall contractility) is to alter preload? This is done with IVC occlusion of varying degrees, which decreases preload and generates the slope of the ESPVR line.
So how this is relevant in assessing RV-PA coupling?
But first, what is coupling?
- RV-PA coupling refers to the relationship between RV contractility and RV afterload. Contractility is the load-independent or intrinsic RV function. The RV and PA are “coupled” in that RV contractility should “match” the afterload.
If RV afterload were to increase, the RV contractility should similarly increase (ie, through RV hypertrophy and adaptation to load), so that RV function is maintained and RV-PA coupling remains preserved. onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-….
Two parameters quantify this coupling: Ees (end-systolic elastance) and Ea (pulmonary effective arterial elastance)
Now let's review how this is clinically relevant in assessing ventriculo-arterial coupling (for left side) or RV-PA coupling (for right side)
Ees is the slope of the end-systolic pressure volume relationship (ESPVR), and represents load-independent contractility.
Ea, is a measure of ventricular afterload and is calculated as the ratio of end-systolic pressure and stroke volume. (@RyanTedfordMD: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…)
Here, RV PV loops derive end-systolic elastance (Ees) from the slope of the peak of the loops with Δ in venous return, & arterial elastance (Ea) from the ratio of RV end-systolic pressure and SV. The ratio (Ees/Ea) quantifies RV-PA coupling. cdleycom.com@PSullivan000
Now to afterload.
- Afterload is the load the heart must overcome to eject blood during ventricular contraction
- An ⬆️ in afterload (aortic pressure) = ⬆️ LV pressure needed for the aortic valve to open during isovolumetric contraction. This results in a taller PV loop.
Higher afterload = smaller stroke volume and an ⬆️ in end-systolic volume (red loop). SV decreases because ⬆️ afterload reduces the velocity of muscle fiber shortening/the velocity at which the blood is ejected. A reduced SV at the same end-diastolic volume results in reduced EF.
Let's look at how we measure afterload with PV loops:
- Prolonged handgrip maneuver is used to ⬆️ afterload
- One can monitor acute diastolic response (EDPVR) to confirm whether a pt has HFpEF or used to monitor for efficacy of ventricular unloading w/ MCS. (🎥: W. Cornwell, UC)
Now that we discussed the basics of PV loops and some effects of changes in afterload, preload, coupling and cardiac contractility, let’s talk about some cardiac pathologies and their effects of PV loops...
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction:
LV systolic dysfunction is characterized by ⬇️ ability of the LV to contract, also known as loss of inotropy. Decreased LV contractility results in decreased SV. Acutely, this leads to ⬆️ preload (an ⬆️ LVEDP can be deleterious over time).
The ⬆️ in preload does not fully compensate for loss of SV from decreased inotropy and overall SV is still ⬇️. Decreased inotropy is shown by a ⬇️ ESPVR slope, and an ⬆️ end systolic volume. As SV decreases and end diastolic volume increases, the ejection fraction greatly ⬇️ ⬇️.
Ventricular diastolic dysfunction is characterized by impaired ventricular filling. ⬇️ ventricular filling ⬇️ preload and SV. ⬇️ ventricular compliance ⬆️ the slope of EDPVR.
Here is a real-life example of HFpEF (LV Loops) from Houston Methodist team (@hfdocbhimaraj, @SNagueh):
Last but not least, valvular disorders... 1. Aortic regurgitation 2. Aortic stenosis 3. Mitral stenosis 4. Mitral regurgitation
1. Aortic regurgitation
- lack of iso-volumetric relaxation (no vertical line btwn AV closure and MV opening)
- loop shifts right (⬆️ in LV end diastolic volume) as regurgitant blood flows into the LV through diastole
- in chronic AI the LV dilates (remodels) and ⬆️ LV compliance
2. Aortic stenosis
- higher LV pressure is require for AV opening; increasing peak systolic pressure.
- ⬆️ in afterload also results from increased LV wall stress
- result is decreased SV and increased end-systolic volume
- in chronic AS, LV hypertrophy -> ⬆️ LVEDP, ⬇️ LVEDV
3. Mitral stenosis
- impaired in LV filling -> ⬇️ preload and SV (narrower loop).
- decrease in aortic pressure results in a slight decrease in afterload resulting in a slight decrease in ventricular end systolic volume, but overall stroke volume still decreases.
4. Mitral regurgitation
- no true isovolumetric contraction or relaxation, as seen by trapezoid-shaped loops, since blood continues to flow through mitral valve back into the LA (⬆️ LA pressure)
- LV afterload ⬇️ (and EF% ⬆️) due to less outflow resistance & LVESV can be lower
- one benefit of real-time PV loop hemodynamic monitoring is an operator can see these isovolumetric phases return immediately during an intervention, such as with the MitraClip(R) procedure. ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.11…
Thanks for joining us on part II of our journey to better understand PV loops (and for a more advanced understanding of hemodynamics and the cardiac cycle).
Stay tuned for Part III on PV loops of specific disease states, cardiogenic shock, devices and drugs #hemodynamics
I'm fully down the rabbit hole tonight - thinking about ventricular-arterial interactions in HF (HFrEF vs HFpEF). A quick thread (based off this 2012 JACC paper from Barry Borlaug and colleagues @MayoClinicCV)...
- Changes in BP & SV with Δ in ventricular loading are predictable based on ventricular-arterial coupling.
- BP ⬇️ while the SV ⬆️ with vasodilation; the extent of Δ is dictated by slope and intercept of the end-systolic pressure volume relationship: end-systolic elastance (Ees)
While elevated arterial afterload (Ea) is common to both forms of HF, the 2 entities differ dramatically in the “active” stiffness (contractility) developed by the heart at end systole, or Ees.
Patient admitted for a COPD exacerbation. You see the patient in the ED an hour after admission and look at tele and see this…what do you do next?
You examine the patient and realize they have cold extremities. Are you concerned about the patient?
You perform a bedside echo and see this… 1. What do we see here that confirmed the diagnosis from tele 2. What do we do next?
(Please answer in comments) twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Here is Part I of our journey to to help YOU better understand PV loops and make them a little less daunting. Couldn't have done this without ⭐ @TJUHospital resident @jayamj94, and edits from @PSullivan000. Stay tuned for Part 2!
Part 1: The Basics
What is a pressure-volume (PV) loop?
A PV loop is a visual representation of the LV pressure (on the y-axis) and LV volume (on the x-axis) throughout a single cardiac cycle. (Great resource: cvphysiology.com/Cardiac%20Func…)
In addition to “typical” hemodynamics and volume measures, PV loops provide unique insights into ventricular function including the quantification of ventricular contractility, compliance, energetics, and dyssynchrony (slide from @BurkhoffMd's TEACH session; more on this to come)
Q: Why do we use a stethoscope?
A: For many reasons, and here’s one of them that I will argue is undervalued. And is still at the heart (hint hint) of some ongoing research…
First described by Potain in 1880, the gallop rhythm refers to the presence and cadence of abnormal diastolic cardiac sounds, namely S3 and S4.
In 1989, Stevenson and Perloff described the previously unestablished relationship between physical exam signs, increased ventricular filling pressures, and decreased cardiac output in chronic HF patients. Stevenson et al. JAMA. 1989. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
I actually stumbled across this while reading about something else (tweetorial pending, cc @DoctorVig), but I digress.
First, although this was a small study (69 patients), it elegantly used univariate/multivariate analysis to predict mortality. (I'm a big fan of regression)
If you look at the strong individual predictors - conduction delay, PCWP, vent. arrhythmia, RA pressure, Afib, EF%, S3, and LVEDP - only one of these metrics is free to measure. The rest require tests; with some being quite invasive.
1/ A few weeks ago while on service, I couldn't for the life of me remember the RCT evidence behind the use of beta-blockers in acute MI
According to the 2013 ACC/AHA STEMI guidelines it is a Class I recommendation (Level of Evidence: A) to start BB acutely, or within a few days
2/ Also, those with moderate or severe LV failure should receive beta-blocker therapy (Class I, Level of Evidence: B)
Furthermore the 2014 NSTEMI guidelines recommend starting BB within 24 hrs...
3/ ...assuming no signs of 1) HF, 2) low output state, 3) increased risk of cardiogenic shock, 4) other contraindications: PR interval >0.24 sec, any heart block without a pacemaker, active asthma, or reactive airway disease (Class I, Level of Evidence: A)