Key result
Opening the pericardium shifted conventional ventricular function curves when plotted against end-diastolic pressure, but not when plotted against end-diastolic diameter, indicating no change in contractility.
Changes in the diastolic pressure-dimension relation shift conventional ventricular function curves, demonstrating that end-diastolic pressure is an unreliable surrogate for end-diastolic dimension when assessing contractility.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
End-diastolic pressure may mislead contractility assessment after pericardial opening; leaves open whether diameter-based curves improve accuracy in intact hearts.
Systolic performance depends on end-diastolic muscle fiber length, contractility, and afterload. Ventricular function curves are constructed using end-diastolic pressure instead of end-diastolic dimensions, on the assumption that end-diastolic pressure and end-diastolic dimensions (reflecting muscle fiber length) have a constant relation. That assumption has been rejected. Theorectically, ventricular function curves should change with changes in the diastolic pressure-dimension relation as well as with contractility or afterload. We measured pressures and dimensions in ventricles of six open-chest dogs before and after opening the pericardium to alter diastolic pressure-dimension relations with afterload constant. When an indicator of systolic performance (developed pressure times diameter change during systole) was plotted against end-diastolic pressure, data obtained with the pericardium closed and open resulted in two distinct curves, suggesting an increase in contractility with the pericardium open. However, when systolic performance was plotted against end-diastolic diameter, data obtained with the pericardiumclosed and open fell along one curve, indicating no change in contractility. Therefore, changes in the diastolic pressure-dimension relation to shift conventional ventricular function curves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Misbach et al. (1979) studied this question. Opening the pericardium vs. Closed pericardium (before opening) was evaluated on Systolic performance (developed pressure times diameter change during systole) plotted against end-diastolic pressure and end-diastolic diameter. Opening the pericardium shifted conventional ventricular function curves when plotted against end-diastolic pressure, but not when plotted against end-diastolic diameter, indicating no change in contractility.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: