Key result
Non-invasive pressure-volume loop analysis revealed that patients with Fontan circulation had significantly lower ventricular mechanical efficiency (56% vs 75%) compared to healthy controls.
Why the study?
Pressure-volume loops provide comprehensive cardiac function assessment but usually require invasive procedures under general anesthesia, prompting evaluation of non-invasive CMR- and brachial pressure-derived loops in Fontan patients versus controls.
Does non-invasive quantification of pressure-volume loops using cardiac magnetic resonance and brachial pressure identify differences in hemodynamic parameters between patients with Fontan circulation and healthy controls?
Cross-Sectional (n=34)
No
Does non-invasive quantification of pressure-volume loops using cardiac magnetic resonance and brachial pressure identify differences in hemodynamic parameters between patients with Fontan circulation and healthy controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 56% vs 75%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Non-invasive PV loop quantification using CMR and brachial pressure reveals that Fontan patients have suboptimal ventricular-arterial coupling and decreased ventricular efficiency, but similar energy per ejected volume compared to healthy controls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noninvasive PV-loop analysis detects lower efficiency in Fontan patients; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Sjöberg et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Fontan circulation (n=34). Non-invasive pressure-volume loop estimation (CMR and brachial pressure) vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Ventricular mechanical efficiency (%) (p=<0.0001). Non-invasive pressure-volume loop analysis revealed that patients with Fontan circulation had significantly lower ventricular mechanical efficiency (56% vs 75%) compared to healthy controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: