4.7 Article

Physiological consequences of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation: the different behaviour of volume- and pressure-overloaded ventricles

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 28, Issue 15, Pages 1886-1893

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm181

Keywords

conduit dysfunction; volume overload; ventricular function; physiology; percutaneous valve

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To investigate the early clinical and physiological consequences of relieving chronic right ventricular (RV) volume overload with percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI). Methods and results We selected 17 patients (age 21.2 +/- 8.7 years), from a total of 125 who underwent PPVI, because they had important pulmonary regurgitation (PR) [regurgitant fraction > 25% on magnetic resonance (MR)] and an echocardiographic gradient < 50 mmHg across the RV outflow tract. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, tissue Doppler and MR were performed before and within 3 months of PPVI. Following PPVI, PR (40.7 +/- 7.3 to 4.1 +/- 6.1%, P < 0.001) and RV end-diastolic volume fell (115.4 +/- 33.1 to 98.9 +/- 32.0 mL/m(2), P = 0.001); effective RV stroke volume increased (34.3 +/- 7.8 to 44.4 +/- 9.3 mL/m(2) P < 0.001). Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (66.6 +/- 18.0 to 73.4 +/- 16.5 mL/m(2) P=0.014), stroke volume (38.4 +/- 11.1 to 46.4 +/- 10.2 mL/m(2), P = 0.001) and ejection fraction (57.8 +/- 8.1 to 63.5 +/- 5.2 mL/m(2) P = 0.001) increased. Pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (8.9 +/- 4.5 to 12.5 +/- 5.2 mmHg, P = 0.041) and mitrat E/Ea increased (from 9.0 +/- 2.0 to 11.6 +/- 3.1, P = 0.003). Patients felt better, but standard measures of exercise capacity were unchanged. Conclusion PPVI relieves PR and restores compensatory cardiac performance. The lack of improvement in exercise parameters suggests that, in contrast to pressure overload, the contractile reserve of chronically volume-overloaded myocardiurn is limited.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available