3/ In heart failure with⬇️EF, the LV dilates, and both EF and #MAPSE falls from increases EDV and outer cross-sectional area.
The figure shows that both EF and MAPSE falls during LV dilatation. #CardioTwitter
4/ In heart failure with preserved EF, LV dysfunction from concentric remodeling reduces #MAPSE. Since EDV is maintained or even reduced, EF is unaffected.
The figure shows that MAPSE is reduced, but EF is maintained when EDV is reduced. #CardioTwitter
5/ #MAPSE is reduced for both HFpEF and HFrEF. This was shown many years ago:
This relationship may also explain that MAPSE show superiority in #ICU: doi.org/10.1136/heart.… doi.org/10.1186/1476-7…
6/ In #ICU, EDV is commonly reduced from vasodilatation and hypovolemia. In this setting, EF is usually normal or even increased if ⬇️MAP. Despite a "hyperdynamic EF", hypovolemia decreases #MAPSE.
The figure shows reduced MAPSE and high EF during hypovolemia. #FOAMcc
7/ SV is normal or increased during vasodilatation. This would tend to increase #MAPSE. Perhaps normal MAPSE in shock could aid the diagnosis of vasodilatation.
The figure shows how normal MAPSE during shock suggests vasodilatation. However, patient data is lacking.
8/ EF by Simpson's is often unfeasible in #ICU, while #MAPSE is highly feasible. Thus, EF is usually qualitative, while MAPSE is quantitative, and quantitative data always offers more information and is necessary for true monitoring.
9/ #MAPSE is an underappreciated hero. #MAPSE measures LV longitudinal function (like GLS), and has shown better sensitivity than EF for detecting LV dysfunction.
...and #MAPSE can now be assessed automatically in #ICU😎📜
2/ The goal of monitoring is
1⃣to detecting small and early changes
2⃣so that therapies can help patients.
For successful monitoring, the measurements must be precise and acquired rapidly and effortlessly. Neither #EchoFirst nor #POCUS fulfil these criteria.
3/ Eyeballing is rapid, effortless, and OK for diagnosing LV dysfunction.
But eyeballing is NOT precise because it categorises LV function.
Changes in LVEF from 45 to 30% are important, yet still in the same category ➡️ undetectable by categorical assessment.
1/ Ventriculoarterial coupling (#VAC) determines the harms and benefits of hemodynamic therapies.
VAC describes cardiac efficiency, and offers a complementary perspective to CO, MAP and tissue perfusion.
Let’s try to understand it🧵
#FOAMcc #FOAMed #MedTwitter #CardioTwitter
2/ VAC is the matching afterload (Ea) to contractility (Ees) and reflect the heart's energy efficiency.
VAC can be understood using the analogy of riding a bicycle.
3/ The resistance in the pedals represent afterload (Ea). Your leg strength represent contractility (Ees).
With too⬆️resistance in the pedals, you spend a lot of energy without moving forward and eventually give up. This is analogous to poor VAC progressing into cardiac failure.
3/ ...during that era, physiologists were focused on cardiac pressure/volume relationships. LVEF emerged as a metric reflecting cardiac volumes, thus filling an unmet need. doi.org/10.1161/01.cir…
1⃣ Can MAPSE redefine "the hyperdynamic heart?
The term "hyperdynamic LV" - EF > 55% - is misleading. It has no relation to a hyperdyanmic circulation; SV/CO. Someone bleeding to death has a hyperdynamic heart, but the circulation is life-threatening hypodynamic.
2/n
MAPSE is cardiac motion, and defining the hyperDYNAMIC heart as good cardiac motion makes perfect sense. Recent geometrical analysis of cardiac pumping shows that MAPSE is the main determinant of SV. Fig from @mugander: tinyurl.com/mxbfmcyk
Why? 3/n