Key result
Clinical stimulation in demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty significantly increased aortic flow velocity compared to rest periods (8.42% increase) and unassisted beats (7.55% increase).
Why the study?
Does demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty improve aortic flow velocity in patients with heart failure?
Does demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty improve aortic flow velocity in patients with heart failure?
Demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty provides significant systolic assistance that correlates with latissimus dorsi contraction speed, as measured by a Doppler flow wire.
Single-case data suggest possible systolic assistance in HF; leaves open clinical utility and safety pending prospective trials.
No data have been published on real cardiac assistance with demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty. We tested the utility of a Doppler flow wire in measuring beat by beat aortic flow velocity and evaluating cardiac assistance in demand cardiomyoplasty patients. The technique was tested in seven patients (M/W = 6/1; age, 57.1+/-6.2 years; atrial fibrillation/ sinus rhythm = 1/6; New York Heart Association [NYHA] classification = 1.4+/-0.5). Measurements were done using a 0.018 inch peripheral Doppler flow wire advanced through a 5 French arterial femoral sheath. Three 1 minute periods with the stimulator off, and three 1 minute periods with clinical stimulation were recorded. We measured peak aortic flow velocity in all beats. Latissimus dorsi mechanogram was simultaneously recorded. Comparison between preoperative and follow-up data showed significantly higher values of tetanic fusion frequency and ejection fraction at follow-up, whereas mean NYHA class was significantly lower. Statistical analysis showed an increase in aortic flow velocity not only in the assisted versus rest period, but also in assisted versus unassisted beats (8.42+/-6.98% and 7.55+/-3.07%). A linear correlation was found between increase in flow velocity and latissimus dorsi wrap tetanic fusion frequency (r2 = 0.53). In demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty, systolic assistance is significant and correlated to the latissimus dorsi speed of contraction; a demand stimulation protocol maintains muscle properties and increases muscle performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rigatelli et al. (2002) studied Demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty (n=7). Clinical stimulation vs. Stimulator off (rest period) and unassisted beats was evaluated on Peak aortic flow velocity (8.42% increase (assisted vs rest) and 7.55% increase (assisted vs unassisted)). Clinical stimulation in demand dynamic cardiomyoplasty significantly increased aortic flow velocity compared to rest periods (8.42% increase) and unassisted beats (7.55% increase).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: