Why the study?
Noninvasive, practical assessment of hemodynamics like LVEDP is a critical unmet need for managing patients with chronic congestive heart failure.
Can cardiac triangle mapping (CTM) be used for the noninvasive evaluation of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP)?
Can cardiac triangle mapping (CTM) be used for the noninvasive evaluation of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP)?
Cardiac triangle mapping (CTM) is proposed as a novel, noninvasive method to estimate LVEDP using only arterial waveforms and ECG, potentially enabling remote monitoring for heart failure patients.
May aid noninvasive LVEDP monitoring in heart failure; leaves open clinical utility pending validation.
Noninvasive and practical assessment of hemodynamics is a critical unmet need in the treatment of both chronic and acute cardiovascular diseases. Particularly, the ability to monitor left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) noninvasively offers enormous benefit for managing patients with chronic congestive heart failure. Recently, we provided proof of concept that a new cardiac metric, intrinsic frequency (IF), derived from mathematical analysis of non-invasively captured arterial waveforms, can be used to accurately compute cardiovascular hemodynamic measures, such as left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), by using a smartphone. In this manuscript, we propose a new systems-based method called cardiac triangle mapping (CTM) for hemodynamics evaluation of the left ventricle. This method is based on intrinsic frequency (IF) and systolic time interval (STI) methods that allows computation of LVEDP from noninvasive measurements. Since the CTM method only requires arterial waveform and electrocardiogram (ECG), it can eventually be adopted as a simple smartphone-based device, an inexpensive hand-held device, or perhaps (with future design modifications) a wearable sensor. Such devices, combined with this method, would allow for remote monitoring of heart failure patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pahlevan et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: