Comparison of admittance and cardiac magnetic resonance generated pressure-volume loops in a porcine model

• Published in: Physiological measurement Vol. 45; no. 5; pp. 55014 - 55023
• Main Authors: Andersen, Stine, Laursen, Pernille Holmberg, Wood, Gregory John, Lyhne, Mads Dam, Madsen, Tobias Lynge, Hansen, Esben Søvsø Szocska, Johansen, Peter, Kim, Won Yong, Andersen, Mads Jønsson
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England IOP Publishing 01.05.2024
• Subjects: admittance; Animals; Blood Pressure - physiology; cardiac function; cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; end-systolic elastance; Heart Ventricles - diagnostic imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Models, Animal; pressure-volume loops; Swine; end-systolic elastance; pressure-volume loops; cardiac function; cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; admittance
• ISSN: 0967-3334; 1361-6579
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/ad4a03

. Pressure-volume loop analysis, traditionally performed by invasive pressure and volume measurements, is the optimal method for assessing ventricular function, while cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the gold standard for ventricular volume estimation. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between the assessment of end-systolic elastance (Ees) assessed with combined CMR and simultaneous pressure catheter measurements compared with admittance catheters in a porcine model. . Seven healthy pigs underwent admittance-based pressure-volume loop evaluation followed by a second assessment with CMR during simultaneous pressure measurements. . Admittance overestimated end-diastolic volume for both the left ventricle (LV) and the right ventricle (RV) compared with CMR. Further, there was an underestimation of RV end-systolic volume with admittance. For the RV, however, Ees was systematically higher when assessed with CMR plus simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance whereas there was no systematic difference in Ees but large differences between admittance and CMR-based methods for the LV. . LV and RV Ees can be obtained from both admittance and CMR based techniques. There were discrepancies in volume estimates between admittance and CMR based methods, especially for the RV. RV Ees was higher when estimated by CMR with simultaneous pressure measurements compared with admittance.