4.4 Article

Right ventricular systolic function is not depressed in morbid obesity

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1287-1293

出版社

F D-COMMUNICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1381/096089206778663887

关键词

pulmonary vascular resistance; pulmonary hypertension; right ventricular function; morbid obesity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The increased pulmonary blood volume associated with the increased total blood volume in morbidly obese patients increases pulmonary artery pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance, resulting in increased right ventricular (RV) afterload. Thus, the morbidly obese may develop RV dysfunction owing to the increased RV afterload. We examined this possibility by assessing RV contractile function in morbidly obese patients, using RV end-systolic pressure-volume relationship and RV systolic time intervals. Methods: Included were 25 morbidly obese patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery under general anesthesia. Pulmonary artery pressure and RV end-systolic volume were measured with a thermodilution pulmonary artery catheter. Pulmonary arterial dicrotic notch pressure was used as an estimate of RV end-systolic pressure. Two data points were used to define RV end-systolic pressure-volume relationship. RV systolic time intervals were determined by simultaneous graphic display of the electrocardiograph, phonocardiograph, and pulmonary artery pressure curve, and were expressed as a pre-ejection period/ RV ejection time ratio. Results: The mean slope of right ventricular end-systolic pressure-volume relationship line was 0.54 +/- 0.13 and mean pulmonary vascular resistance 274 +/- 80 dyne.sec.cm(-5).m(-2). The mean pre-ejection period/ RV ejection time ratio was 0.4 +/- 0.11. There was an inverse correlation between the pre-ejection/RV ejection time ratio and the slope of RV end-systolic pressure-volume relationship line (R-2 = 0.658, P<0.0001). Conclusion: Our data indicate that RV function is not depressed in morbid obesity despite increased RV afterload.

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

4.4
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