Key result
Pulse wave velocity tracks stroke volume trends but fails to capture absolute values.
Why the study?
Current methods for monitoring stroke volume require invasive or additional non-invasive measurements, prompting investigation of pulse wave velocity as a potential surrogate.
Effect estimate: r = 0.59 for trend value; r = 0.028 for absolute value
Stroke Volume (SV) measurements are essential for evaluating patient hemodynamic status and response to therapy. However, current methods for monitoring SV require either invasive or non-invasive additional measurements. This study investigates the relationship between SV and Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) to examine whether the value of PWV can capture the changes in SV. The analysis was performed using data from six porcine experiments (N=6 Pietrain Pigs, 20-29 kg) in which left ventricular volume, aortic arc pressure, and descending aortic pressure waveforms were measured simultaneously. From the measured data, correlation coefficients were determined between absolute value of aortic PWV, SV and trend value ‘PWV - mean PWV, ‘SV - mean SV during periods when changes in SV were induced from preload changes, as well as infusion of dobutamine. The results showed good correlation (r = 0.59) for trend value, however, the correlation coefficient were poor with r = 0.028 for absolute value across all pigs. The analysis showed that value of PWV is reliable for capturing trend value of SV in preload changes. However, it is unreliable for capturing absolute value of SV or changes in SV made from dobutamine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamoi et al. (2015) studied this question. Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) vs. Stroke Volume (SV) was evaluated on Correlation coefficients between absolute value of aortic PWV and SV, and trend values during induced SV changes (r = 0.59 for trend value; r = 0.028 for absolute value). Pulse wave velocity reliably captured trend values of stroke volume during preload changes (r = 0.59) but poorly correlated with absolute stroke volume values across all pigs (r = 0.028).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: