4.6 Article

Atrioventricular plane displacement is the major contributor to left ventricular pumping in healthy adults, athletes, and patients with dilated cardiomyopathy

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01148.2006

关键词

left ventricle; stroke volume; cardiac pumping; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies using echocardiography in healthy subjects have reported conflicting data regarding the percentage of the stroke volume ( SV) of the left ventricle ( LV) resulting from longitudinal and radial function, respectively. Therefore, the aim was to quantify the percentage of SV explained by longitudinal atrioventricular plane displacement ( AVPD) in controls, athletes, and patients with decreased LV function due to dilated cardiomyopathy ( DCM). Twelve healthy subjects, 12 elite triathletes, and 12 patients with DCM and ejection fraction below 30% were examined by cine magnetic resonance imaging. AVPD and SV were measured in long- and short- axis images, respectively. The percentage of the SV explained by longitudinal function ( SVAVPD%) was calculated as the mean epicardial area of the largest short- axis slices in end diastole multiplied by the AVPD and divided by the SV. SV was higher in athletes [ 140 +/- 4 ml ( mean +/- SE), P = 0.009] and lower in patients ( 72 +/- 7 ml, P < 0.001) when compared with controls ( 116 +/- 6 ml). AVPD was similar in athletes ( 17 +/- 1 mm, P = 0.45) and lower in patients ( 7 +/- 1 mm, P = 0.001) when compared with controls ( 16 +/- 0 mm). SVAVPD% was similar both in athletes ( 57 +/- 2%, P = 0.51) and in patients ( 67 +/- 4%, P = 0.24) when compared with controls ( 60 +/- 2%). In conclusion, longitudinal AVPD is the primary contributor to LV pumping and accounts for similar to 60% of the SV. Although AVPD is less than half in patients with DCM when compared with controls and athletes, the contribution of AVPD to LV function is maintained, which can be explained by the larger short- axis area in DCM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据