Key result
Kinematic VFT differentiates pseudonormal from normal diastolic filling, outperforming standard VFT.
Why the study?
Does VFTkinematic improve the differentiation between normal and pseudonormal diastolic filling patterns compared to VFTstandard in patients with normal LVEF?
Cross-Sectional (n=25)
No
Does VFTkinematic improve the differentiation between normal and pseudonormal diastolic filling patterns compared to VFTstandard in patients with normal LVEF?
VFTkinematic, unlike VFTstandard, can successfully differentiate between normal and pseudonormal diastolic filling patterns in patients with normal LVEF.
VFTkinematic may refine diastolic assessment in normal LVEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical adoption.
In early diastole, the suction pump feature of the left ventricle opens the mitral valve and aspirates atrial blood. The ventricle fills via a blunt profiled cylindrical jet of blood that forms an asymmetric toroidal vortex ring inside the ventricle whose growth has been quantified by the standard (dimensionless) expression for vortex formation time, VFTstandard = {transmitral velocity time integral}/{mitral orifice diameter}. It can differentiate between hearts having distinguishable early transmitral (Doppler E-wave) filling patterns. An alternative validated expression, VFTkinematic reexpresses VFTstandard by incorporating left heart, near "constant-volume pump" physiology thereby revealing VFTkinematic's explicit dependence on maximum rate of longitudinal chamber expansion (E'). In this work, we show that VFTkinematic can differentiate between hearts having indistinguishable E-wave patterns, such as pseudonormal (PN; 0.75 < E/A < 1.5 and E/E' > 8) versus normal. Thirteen age-matched normal and 12 PN data sets (738 total cardiac cycles), all having normal LVEF, were selected from our Cardiovascular Biophysics Laboratory database. Doppler E-, lateral annular E'-waves, and M-mode data (mitral leaflet separation, chamber dimension) was used to compute VFTstandard and VFTkinematic. VFTstandard did not differentiate between groups (normal [3.58 ± 1.06] vs. PN [4.18 ± 0.79], P = 0.13). In comparison, VFTkinematic for normal (3.15 ± 1.28) versus PN (4.75 ± 1.35) yielded P = 0.006. Hence, the applicability of VFTkinematic for diastolic function quantitation has been broadened to include analysis of PN filling patterns in age-matched groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghosh et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Diastolic dysfunction (pseudonormal filling pattern) (n=25). Pseudonormal diastolic filling pattern (assessed via kinematic vortex formation time [VFTkinematic]) vs. Normal diastolic filling pattern was evaluated on Kinematic vortex formation time (VFTkinematic, dimensionless) (p=0.006). Kinematic vortex formation time (VFTkinematic) significantly differentiated pseudonormal from normal diastolic filling (4.75 vs. 3.15, P=0.006), whereas VFTstandard did not (4.18 vs. 3.58, P=0.13).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: