Why the study?
Simultaneous biventricular pressure-volume loops are important for quantifying ventricular function during physiologic changes, but detailed technical methods for fully percutaneous closed-chest implementation were needed.
This paper provides a detailed methodological guide for implementing a completely endovascular, percutaneous, closed-chest swine model to obtain contemporaneous biventricular pressure-volume loops.
Enables fully percutaneous biventricular PV loop studies in swine; extends preclinical tools while leaving clinical translation open.
Pressure-volume (PV) loop analysis is a sophisticated invasive approach to quantifying load-dependent and independent measures of cardiac function. Biventricular (BV) PV loops allow left and right ventricular function to be quantified simultaneously and independently, which is important for conditions and certain physiologic states, such as ventricular decoupling or acute physiologic changes. BV PV loops can be performed in an entirely endovascular, percutaneous, and closed-chest setting. This technique is helpful in a survival animal model, as a percutaneous monitoring system during endovascular device experiments, or in cases where chest wall compliance is being tested or may be a confounder. In this article, we describe the end-to-end implementation of a completely endovascular, totally percutaneous, and closed-chest large animal model to obtain contemporaneous BV PV loops in 40 to 70 kg swine. We describe the associated surgical and technical challenges and our solutions to obtaining endovascular BV PV loops, closed-chest cardiac output, and stroke volume (including validation of the correction factor necessary for thermodilution), as well as how to perform endovascular inferior vena cava occlusion in this swine model. We also include techniques for data acquisition and analysis that are required for this method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stonko et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: