Why the study?
Do exercise-induced alterations in left ventricular volumes and the pressure-volume relationship identify left ventricular dysfunction in patients with coronary artery disease?
Do exercise-induced alterations in left ventricular volumes and the pressure-volume relationship identify left ventricular dysfunction in patients with coronary artery disease?
Exercise-induced changes in left ventricular end-systolic volume and the pressure-volume index are sensitive indicators of left ventricular dysfunction in patients with significant coronary artery disease.
May aid noninvasive detection of exercise-induced LV dysfunction in multivessel CAD; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
Thirty-three patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and 13 subjects without demon- strable cardiac disease were studied with multigated equilibrium blood pool imaging to assess the diagnostic value of exercise-induced alterations in left ventricular (LV) volumes, segmental wall motion, ejection fraction (LVEF), and the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship.In subjects without cardiac disease, left ventric- ular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was 102 ± 7.2 ml (SEM) at rest and 125 ± 9.7 ml at peak exercise (PEx) (p < 0.001).Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 35 ± 3.0 ml at rest and 29 ± 3.4 ml at PEx (p < 0.01).LVEF increased from 0.72 ± 0.02 at rest to 0.82 0.02 at PEx (p < 0.001).The nine patients with one-vessel CAD also had an increase in LVEDV (p < 0.001) and LVEF (p < 0.02) at PEx, but no significant change in LVESV.The 24 patients with significant two-or three-vessel CAD had increases in both LVEDV (169 ± 13.2 ml to 195 ± 13.7 ml, p < 0.001) and LVESV (86 ± 12.0 ml to 102 ± 12.0 ml, p < 0.01) at PEx and a decrease in LVEF (0.56 ± 0.03 to 0.52 ± 0.03, p < 0.05).The relationship between cuff-determined peak systolic blood pressure and LVESV index (P/V index) was used to further characterize alterations in LV function at rest and during PEx.In subjects without cardiac disease, this index rose substan- tially during PEx (7.6 ± 0.73 at rest vs 14.9 ± 1.78 with PEx, p < 0.001).This change was less dramatic in those with one-vessel disease and absent in patients with two-or three-vessel disease (4.2 ± 0.60 at rest vs 3.9 ± 0.50 at PEx, NS).The change in LVESV alone was different in each group.We conclude that the assessment of exercise-induced alterations in LVESV and the P/V index is useful for evaluating LV dysfunction associated with angiographically important coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dehmer et al. (1981) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Circulation