Why the study?
Does the stroke volume-to-aortic pulse pressure ratio (SV/PP) reliably estimate total arterial compliance compared to the area method in humans at rest?
Does the stroke volume-to-aortic pulse pressure ratio (SV/PP) reliably estimate total arterial compliance compared to the area method in humans at rest?
The stroke volume-to-aortic pulse pressure ratio provides a reliable estimate of total arterial compliance in humans at rest.
Supports SV/PP as compliance estimate at rest; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
On the basis of the windkessel model, the stroke volume-to-aortic pulse pressure ratio (SV/PP) has been proposed as an estimate of total arterial compliance, but recent studies have questioned this approximation. Aortic pressure was obtained at rest in 31 adults undergoing cardiac catheterization (47 +/- 14 yr): controls (n = 7), patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 10), and patients with other cardiac diseases (n = 14). We calculated PP, mean aortic pressure (MAoP), heart period (T), SV (thermodilution cardiac output/heart rate), total peripheral resistance (R), total arterial compliance estimated by area method (Carea), and the time constant of aortic pressure decay in diastole (RCarea). In the overall population (n = 31), there was no significant difference between SV/PP and Carea. SV/PP was linearly related to Carea (SV/PP = 0.99Carea + 0.05; r = 0.98; P < 0.001); the slope and intercept did not differ from unity and zero, respectively. Similar results were obtained in the three subgroups. These results implied that PP/MAoP and T/RCarea were proportionally related (T/RCarea = 1.18PP/MAoP - 0.07; r = 0.96; P < 0.001). We conclude that for humans at rest 1) SV/PP gave a reliable estimate of Carea, and 2) T normalized by the time constant of aortic pressure decay in diastole was proportionally related to PP/MAoP. This last relationship could be considered an aspect of the coupling between the left ventricle and its load.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chemla et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: