Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

Levosimendan in acs

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige

Hier ansehen

1 von 62 Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Anzeige

Ähnlich wie Levosimendan in acs (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

Levosimendan in acs

  1. 1. LEVOSIMENDAN IN ACS Expert opinion
  2. 2. ESC CARDIOLOGY GUIDELINES MAY 2016
  3. 3.  Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is one of the main precipitating factors of acute heart failure (AHF), usually in the context of  extensive myocardial ischemia,  myocardial dysfunction and injury, and  arrhythmia.  It can lead to the development of de novo AHF or worsening of chronic heart failure.  AHF, in turn, can deteriorate into cardiogenic shock (CS).  It has been estimated that 15–28% of patients with ACS experience signs and symptoms of AHF. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurs in 5–15% . Unfortunately no guidelines exist on management of acute heart failure in the setting of ACS patients ACS guidelines focus predominantly on intervention part Heart failure guidelines/trials usually exclude ACS patients.
  4. 4.  Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizer and ATP- dependent potassium channel opener, developed for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure, with a solid evidence of efficacy and safety.  In the last 15 years evidences have been collected on the use of levosimendan in AHF and CS complicating ACS.  Purpose of this review and opinion paper was analysis of the existing data and clinical experience, and give some recommendations on the use of levosimendan in AHF and CS related to ischemic conditions.
  5. 5. Levosimendan enhances cardiac contractility by binding to the cardiac TROPONIN C with a high affinity and stabilizes the Ca2+ bound conformation of this regulatory protein. It does not increase the intracellular Ca2+ LEVELS. BINDING OF LEVOSIMENDAN to troponin C is dependent on the cytosolic ca2+ concentration i.e. increases during systole but is relatively unchanged during diastole,when Ca2+ levels decrease. Thus there is parallel enhancement of myocardial contractility and LV diastolic function. Levosimendan does not increase intracellular Ca2+ , which other inotropes usually do (that possibly leads to myocardial cell death and / or increases lethal arrhythmias.) THUS it is relatively free of arrhythmias compared to other inotropes.
  6. 6. LEVOSIMENDAN also causes PHOSPHODIESTERASE3 inhibition , but this action occurs at doses well above therapeutic range . VASODILATION Levosimendan produces vasodilation in several vasculatures including coronary , pulmonary , renal , splanchnic , cerebral and systemic arteries as well as saphenous , portal and systemic veins . It does so by opening ATP sensitive K+ channels in smooth muscles. Thus it decreases both PRELOAD and AFTERLOAD.
  7. 7. LEVOSIMENDAN also has CARDIOPROTECTIVEEFFECT , by opening mitochondrial (ATP)-sensitive potassium channels in cardiomyocytes. Opening of K-ATP channels in the cardiac mitochondria is assumed to exert cardioprotective effects . Du Toit et al. showed that in a guinea pig model, preconditioning with levosimendan decreased the extent of hypoxic myocardial injury from 100% to 10%.
  8. 8. INOTROPIC VASODILATOR CARDIOPROTECTIVE (ANTI-STUNNINGAND ANTIINFLAMMATORY) NO INCREASE IN O2 DEMAND NOINCREASEIN ARRHYTHMIAS LEVOSIMENDAN=A NOVEL DRUG FOR ADCHF
  9. 9. Feature Levosimendan Milrinone Dobutamine Class Calcium sensitiser Phosphodiesterase inhibitor Catecholamine Increases intracellular calcium concentrations? No Yes Yes Increases cardiac contractility? Yes Yes Yes Vasodilator? Coronary and systemic Peripheral Mild peripheral Increase myocardial oxygen demand? No No Yes Arrhythmogenic potential No evidence of arrhythmogenesis to date Ventricular (12.1%) and supra- ventricular arrhythmias (3.8%) Ventricular ectopic activity (5%); less arrhythmogenic than milrinone
  10. 10.  According to a comparison of levosimendan and milrinone, levosimendan improves the microcirculation in the splanchnic vessels, whereas milrinone has a neutral effect, even though both drugs have a similar influence on systemic blood pressure.  Further, levosimendan improves long-term renal function in patients with advanced chronic HF awaiting cardiac transplantation, possibly via enhanced renal blood flow.  Both creatinine levels and creatinine clearance improve as compared to controls.
  11. 11.  In another study, Bragadottir et al. showed that levosimendan had positive effects on renal blood flow, glomerular filtration rate, renal oxygen consumption and oxygenation.  The authors found a remarkable difference between levosimendan and dopamine regarding glomerular filtration rates.  A possible explanation for this is that levosimendan has differential effects on afferent and efferent vessels in the kidney, whereas the effects of dopamine are independent of the vessel type.
  12. 12.  The use of levosimendan after an ischemic event can diminish stunning. According to Sonntag et al., patients with ACS treated with levosimendan experienced a decrease in the total number of hypokinetic segments as compared to placebo.  Levosimendan reduces myocardial infarct size and increases left-ventricular function after acute coronary occlusion.  Additionally, in animal models levosimendan showed anti-ischemic , anti-remodeling and anti-apoptotic effects .  As it regards effects on neurohormones, in the SURVIVE study levosimendan was superior to dobutamine for a sustained decrease of BNP
  13. 13.  Panel of 34 experts in the field of cardiology, intensive care medicine, internal medicine, and cardiovascular pharmacology from 20 European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine) convened in Munich on January 22nd, 2016 to review systematically the existing data on the use of levosimendan in AHF and CS complicating ACS.  Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMed Central, PubMed, and Embase (updated January 7, 2016) by three trained investigators.  The full search strategy was aimed to include any randomized study ever performed with levosimendan in the relevant clinical setting.  The retrieved literature was available for consultation by all the meeting invitees for two weeks before the meeting.  During the meeting the group discussed and reached a consensus on the epidemiology and outcome of AHF and CS complicating ACS, and – in general – on the pathophysiology of myocardial ischemia.  Furthermore, the panel reached a consensus on some recommendations regarding the use of levosimendan, based on existing literature and clinical experience.
  14. 14.  AHF is frequently complicating ACS especially when large infarction, extensive ischemic area with stunning or mitral regurgitation, and arrhythmias are present.  In the EHFS II study, 42% of the de novo AHF was due to ACS M.S. Nieminen, D. Brutsaert, K. Dickstein, et al.,EuroHeart Failure Survey II (EHFS II): a survey on hospitalized acute heart failure patients: description of population, Eur. Heart J. 27 (22) (2006) 2725–2736.
  15. 15. Sani M, et al: The causes, treatment, and outcome of acute heart failure in 1006 Africans from 9 countries: results of the sub-Saharan Africa survey of heart failure. Arch Intern Med 172:1386, 2012.
  16. 16. Overall, the incidence of AHF as a complication of ACS, as well as the corresponding mortality, has been decreasing over the last years. The incidence of HF declined from 46% to 28% (p b 0.001). The decrease in HF can probably be explained by more frequent use of primary PCI, which secures early reperfusion in patients with STEMI and, thereby, salvages jeopardized myocardium. Also, an increased use of evidence based pharmacological treatment preventing remodeling may contribute. Finally, the more frequent detection of minor AMI with high sensitivity troponin testing may lower the estimated HF risk, since the precipitation of AHF depends on the size of injury or ischemic area.
  17. 17. In a recent prospective multicenter study, CS and pulmonary edema were found to be more common in ACS–AHF patients than in AHF patients without concomitant ACS . Accordingly, the ACS–AHF patients were found to have markedly higher short-term mortality rates, with an almost two-fold 30-day mortality (13% vs. 8%; p = 0.03). ACS was shown to be an independent predictor of 30-day mortality in the HF population. In addition, ACS–AHF prolongs hospitalization and requires more costly treatment in intensive care.
  18. 18.  Risk factors for the development of AHF during a hospital stay due to ACS, according to multivariate analysis based on the data obtained in SWEDEHEART, include AdvancedAge, FemaleGender, PastH/OMI DiabetesMellitus, Hypertension,And HistoryOfChronicHF.
  19. 19. The CardShock Study identified ischemic causes as the principal etiology of CS (81%)a/w Worse outcomes than those with non-ischemic causes. Other factors associated with high mortality in CS are Multivessel disease ,advanced age, history of previous MI and CABG, anoxic brain damage or confusion, decreases LVEF, cardiac index (CI) cardiac output and SBP, need for vasopressor support, deterioration in renal function, and elevated serum lactate Levels . Prior CPR is also an important factor.
  20. 20. Due to the rapid development of HF, the pulmonary vasculature is frequently not able to adapt promptly. Impaired left ventricular function and hemodynamic overload results in backward failure with pulmonary congestion/edema..
  21. 21.  In terms of pathophysiology, profound depression of myocardial contractility leads to CS, resulting in a vicious spiral of reduced cardiac output (CO), low blood pressure, impaired coronary perfusion, and further concomitant reductions in contractility and CO.  Also, an acute deterioration in the diastolic function may contribute to further derangement of ventricular function and congestion.  The classical paradigm predicts that compensatory systemic vasoconstriction occurs in response to this, i.e. over activation of adrenergic and RAAS reflex mechanisms causing increases in vascular resistance, but this is not always the case .
  22. 22.  Impaired hemodynamic capability is also due to changes in ventricular and arterial elastance.  Under normal conditions ventricular and arterial elastances show approximately equal slopes, providing hemodynamic equilibrium to occur at the lowest energy cost.  In a failing condition, however, reductions in the contractility and/or increases in the arterial elastance lead to ventriculo-arterial uncoupling and increased myocardial oxygen consumption.  The administration of vasopressors worsen this problem by enhancin peripheral vasoconstriction and, thereby, further worsening ventriculo-arterial coupling.
  23. 23.  At present, specific consensus and international guidelines on the comprehensive pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of ACS patients with HF are not available.  HF guidelines commonly exclude ACS patients, while ACS guidelines tend to focus predominantly on invasive therapies.  This lack of treatment guidelines can be explained by the paucity of data, since many clinical trials and even registries have excluded patients with AHF/CS due to ACS.
  24. 24.  There is no robust or convincing data to support a specific inotropic or vasodilatory therapy as a superior strategy to other therapies used to reduce mortality in hemodynamically unstable patients.  Guidelines recommend the administration of adrenergic agents if necessary for maintaining adequate circulation, but recommend also that these drugs should be given at as lowdose and for as short duration as possible to prevent side effects.
  25. 25.  Inotropic drugs are indeed used as first-line treatment, without or with vasopressors in patients with CS related to ACS .  The administration of these drugs requires continuous monitoring of hemodynamic parameters and, in a state of hypoperfusion, fluid compensation under invasive measurement of blood pressure and possibly CO.  Inotropic agents should be given for a limited period of time,  As soon as a stable condition has been achieved, weaning off should be considered.  Mechanical circulatory support should be considered as soon it becomes clear that hemodynamic stability with preserved end organ function cannot be maintained with medication alone
  26. 26.  Vasopressors are frequently used alone in an attempt to restore blood pressure.  Several studies suggest, however, that this approach is not advisable since it may inflict harm.  An analysis combining three data bases showed that the mortality was higher in patients treated with vasopressors alone than in those receiving combinations of vasopressors and inotropes.  This effect was independent of the underlying disease and the database used.  These results are echoed in other studies, such as an analysis of approximately 5000 patients with AHF including CS in the ALARM database.  In this study, the use of epinephrine and norepinephrine predicted the poorest outcomes.  Overall, these data are a strong signal indicating that monotherapy with vasopressors and/or inopressors should be avoided in the treatment of the failing heart, as the associated increase in LV afterload imposes a burden on the ischemic myocardium. In contrast, these pathophysiological considerations render the use of an inodilator more suitable.
  27. 27. So far, vasodilator plus diuretics better than diuretics alone in acute heart failure and inodilator plus vasopressor better than inopressor alone in cardiogenic shock
  28. 28.  In the placebo-controlled RUSSLAN trial , 6- h infusions of levosimendan at different doses were shown to be safe in 504 patients, who developed HF within 5 days after AMI and required inotropic therapy due to symptomatic HF despite conventional therapy.  Levosimendan decreased the incidence of worsening heart failure and reduced both short-term and long-term mortality.
  29. 29.  Hypotension, as a side effect of levosimendan, occurred in 4%–10% of patients, depending on the dose and use of a bolus.  Other adverse events, such as episodes of ischemia, ventricular extra-systoles, and sinus tachycardia, occurred mainly or exclusively at higher doses.  The lower levosimendan doses of 0.1 μg/kg/min and 0.2 μg/kg/min were accompanied by a low risk of adverse events.
  30. 30. In their placebo-controlled trial, Sonntag et al. evaluated 24 patients with ACS. Levosimendan was administered as a bolus (24 μg/kg) for 10 min after PCI. This treatment induced reductions in the number of hypokinetic segments in the left ventricle and increased LVEF, suggesting that levosimendan may counteract post- ischemic stunning. In addition, pulmonary arterial pressure decreased in the levosimendan group, but not in the placebo group.
  31. 31. De Luca et al. investigated levosimendan as compared to placebo in 26 patients with STEMI and left-ventricular dysfunction (EF <40%). Levosimendan was applied at a bolus dose of 12 μg/kg 10 min after PCI, followed by an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h. As compared with placebo, levosimendan was associated with improved coronary flow reserve, reduced pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and increased CI.
  32. 32. 52 patients with anterior STEMI were treated with levosimendan at a bolus dose of 12 μg/kg for10 min after PCI, followed by an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h. Levosimendan improved isovolumetric relaxation as compared to placebo, and reduced the ratio of peak early to late diastolic flow velocities, indicating decreased filling pressure.
  33. 33. In the randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label study by Wu et al., 30 patients with severe HF (NYHA III–IV) and LVEF <40% after PCI treated AMI received either levosimendan as an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h, or placebo. Low-dose dobutamine echocardiography showed significantly less stunned and infarcted segments in levosimendan group than with placebo.
  34. 34. Another randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 160 patients with HF due to AMI, who were treated with or without revascularization. Levosimendan was administered as a bolus at a dose of 24 μg/kg in 10 min followed by an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min for 24 h. As compared to placebo, this treatment induced significant improvement in the primary endpoint, which was a composite outcome including death and worsening heart failure at six months (43.7% vs. 62.5%; HR, 0.636; p = 0.041).
  35. 35. Indeed the largest head to head comparison of levosimendan vs. dobutamine in AHF related to AMI remains the SURVIVE clinical trial. This randomized, double-blind trial compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan or dobutamine in 1327 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure who required inotropic support. A relevant number of patients were hospitalized with AMI (178, or 13.4%) and the data of mortality were stratified also for this parameter. The 31-day mortality in the AHF-AMI subgroup was 23/83 (28%) and 30/95 (32%) in the levosimendan and dobutamine arms respectively (RR 0.83 [0.48–1.43]). As a comparison, the 31-day mortality in the non-AHF-AMI subgroup was 56/581 (10%) and 61/568 (11%) in the levosimendan and dobutamine arms respectively (RR 0.89 [0.62–1.28]).
  36. 36. Two independent meta- analyses by Landoni et al. and Koster et al., considering 45 and 48 randomized studies respectively, focused also on the adverse effects of levosimendan vs. comparator arms (active drugs or placebo on top of standard of care). With the exception of HYPOTENSION, NO OTHER SIGNS for increase of adverse events by levosimendan were reported in either meta-analyses.
  37. 37. In their randomized, prospective, single-center, open-label trial, Fuhrmann et al.found that levosimendan appeared superior to enoximone as an add-on therapy in refractory CS complicating AMI. Thirty-two patients received levosimendan (a bolus at 12 μg/kg/10 min followed by an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min for 50 min and 0.2 μg/kg/min for 23 h) or enoximone on top of the current treatment (PCI, vasopressors, etc.). Both drugs had similar hemodynamic effects, but the survival at 30 days was significantly in favor of levosimendan (69% vs. 37%; p = 0.023). Death from multiple organ failure occurred only in the enoximone group. The levosimendan-treated arm tended to require less additive dobutamine and norepinephrine treatment than the enoximone group to maintain tissue perfusion.
  38. 38. Twenty-two STEMI patients with CS after PCI were enrolled in a randomized, prospective, single-center, open-label trial comparing levosimendan (a bolus dose of 24 μg/kg over 10 min followed by an infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min/24 h) and dobutamine (5 μg kg−1 min−1, without loading dose) in addition to current standard therapy. Treatment effects on CI and cardiac power index were consistently better with levosimendan than with dobutamine. Significant reductions in isovolumetric relaxation time and increases in the early diastolic/late diastolic flow ratio occurred in the levosimendan group at 24 h , and the LVEF was significantly improved (p = 0.003). No difference was seen regarding long-term survival.
  39. 39. In their observational study, Russ et al. treated 56 patients with myocardial infarction and persisting CS 24 h after percutaneous revascularization with levosimendan 12 μg/kg for 10 min followed by 0.05– 0.2 μg/kg/min for 24 h. Norepinephrine and dobutamine therapy only resulted in marginal improvements in CI and mean arterial pressure, while levosimendan produced significant increases in CI (p b 0.01) and cardiac power index (p b 0.01). At the same time, systemic vascular resistance decreased significantly (p b 0.01).
  40. 40. METHODS ALL CONSECUTIVE CASES OF ACUTE MI (STEMI/NSTEMI) WHO HAD DEVELOPED CARDIOGENIC SHOCK DURING A TIME PERIOD OF 15 MONTHS (w.e.f MARCH 04- JUNE 05) , WERE INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. TOTAL CASES= 58 ALL THESE PATIENTS RECEIVED HEMODYNAMIC STABILIZATION WITH CATECHOLAMINES AND UNDERWENT PCI FOR REVASCULARIZATION OF THE INFARCTION RELATED ARTERY. IMMEDIATELY AFTER REPERFUSION,CARDIOGENIC SHOCK WAS REEVALUATED USING INCLUSION CRITERIA OF SHOCK TRIAL
  41. 41. CARDIAC INDEX < 2.2 L/MIN PULMONARY ARTERY OCCLUSION PRESSURE > 15 MM HG PERSISTENT HYPOTENSION (SBP < 90 FOR >= 30 MIN OR NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE MEASURESTO KEEP SBP >=90 CLINICAL CRITERIA:END ORGAN HYPOPERFUSION COOL EXTREMITIES URINE OUTPUT <30 ML/HR CRITERIAS FOR CARDIOGENIC SHOCK FROMTHE SHOCKTRIAL
  42. 42. IF CARDIOGENIC SHOCK PERSISTED AFTER PCI , PATIENTS WERE KEPT ON CATECHOLAMINES SUPPORT AND IABP WAS USED WHEREVER NECESSARY. REST OF THE CASES WERE PUT ON TREATMENT LINES OF ACS AFTER THAT PATIENTS WERE OBSERVED FOR NEXT 24 HOURS PATIENTS WITH PERSISTENT CARDIOGENIC SHOCK AND INCREASE IN CARDIAC INDEX < 20 % FROM BASELINE, DESPITE 24 HOURS OF CATECHOLAMINE THERAPY,WERE PUT ON LEVOSIMENDAN INFUSION
  43. 43. LEVOSIMENDAN WAS ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO A PROTOCOL A BOLUS DOSE OF 12 ug/kg WAS GIVEN I/V OVER 10 MIN. => INFUSION @ 0.1 ug/kg/min FOR 50 MIN => INFUSION @ 0.05-0.2 ug/kg/min FOR 23 HRS. HEMODYNAMIC MEASUREMENTS WERE RECORDED AT A) AFTER REVASCULARISATION ( - 24 HOURS) B) WHILE STARTING LEVOSIMENDAN ( 0 HOURS) C) 3, 24 AND 48 HRS AFTER STARTING LEVOSIMENDAN
  44. 44. EFFECT ON CARDIAC INDEX 38%
  45. 45. EFFECT ON INFLAMMATORY MARKERS
  46. 46. THE STUDY REVEALED THAT LEVOSIMENDAN IN POST MI CARDIOGENIC SHOCK A) IS WELL TOLERATED AND LEADS TO SUBSTANTIAL HEMODYNAMIC IMPROVEMENT. B) WORKS WELL EVEN IN CASES WHERE CATECHOLAMINES FAIL C) INCREASES CARDIAC OUTPUT, CARDIAC INDEX D) DECREASES SYSTEMIC VASCULAR RESISTANCE E) DECREASES INFLAMMATORY MARKERS WITH NO MAJOR ADVERSE EFFECTS
  47. 47. CONCLUSION :- “ALL THESE DATA SUPPORT THE USE OF LEVOSIMENDAN IN POST MI CARDIOGENIC SHOCK PATIENTS FOR ITS CALCIUM SENSITIZING , INOTROPIC AND ANTI MYOCARDIAL STUNNING PROPERTIES”
  48. 48. A non-randomized trial compared supplementary levosimendan treatment with intra-aortic balloon pump placement in patients with AMI and refractory CS following preliminary hemodynamic support (dobutamine with or without norepinephrine) and primary PCI. Infusion of levosimendan resulted in early and sustained hemodynamic improvement. CI and cardiac power index rose more rapidly in the levosimendan arm, and systemic vascular resistance showed a more pronounced initial decrease. For mean arterial pressure, there were no differences between the two treatments. This also applied to the use of supplementary drugs (dobutamine and norepinephrine).
  49. 49. EFFECT ON RIGHT VENTRICULAR FUNCTION
  50. 50.  Overall, the existing studies on levosimendan in AHF and CS are not adequately powered for reaching conclusions on the effect of the treatment on survival.  As reviewed, however, the existing data on the beneficial activity of levosimendan treatment can justify its use in certain AHF settings and in CS also when related to ACS.
  51. 51.  The inodilator levosimendan offers potential benefits in treatment of acute heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock complicating ACS due to a range of distinct effects including positive inotropy, restoration of ventriculo- arterial coupling, increases in tissue perfusion, and anti-stunning and anti- inflammatory effects
  52. 52.  Clinical trials investigating levosimendan in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock suggest improvements in cardiac function, hemodynamics, and end-organ function. Re- hospitalization rates are decreased,  Adverse effects are generally less common with levosimendan than with other inotropes, inodilators or inoconstrictors,
  53. 53.  The indication of levosimendan depends on the presence of congestion, levels of blood pressure and heart rate, and the extent of cardiac ischemia,  Levosimendan can be used alone or in combination with other agents,  It requires continuous monitoring due to the risk of hypotension.

Hinweis der Redaktion

  • As opposed to other inotropic drugs used in HF treatment, levosimendan does not raise intracellular calcium levels . This implies that less energy is utilized by the cardiomyocytes, because re-internalization of calcium increases ATP expenditure and accounts for
    30% of the energy consumed by the cardiomyocyte during the contraction–relaxation cycle. A comparison of levosimendan and milrinone shows that both molecules intensify cardiac contraction, but while milrinone increases oxygen consumption, levosimendan does not. In clinical settings, levosimendan was also shown to be superior to dobutamine as it regards myocardial efficiency
  • Levosimendan-mediated opening of KATP channels on smooth muscle
    cells in the vasculature has been demonstrated in many different
    vessels. According to another comparison of levosimendan and
    milrinone [33], levosimendan improves the microcirculation in the
    splanchnic vessels, whereas milrinone has a neutral effect, even though
    both drugs have a similar influence on systemic blood pressure. Further,
    levosimendan improved long-term renal function in patients with advanced
    chronic HF awaiting cardiac transplantation [34], possibly via
    enhanced renal blood flow. Both creatinine levels and creatinine clearance
    were improved as compared to controls.
  • Interestingly, however, the 5-year mortality rates did not differ (59% vs. 61%; p = 0.80).
  • Interactions between the left ventricle (LV) and the arterial system, (ventricular–arterial coupling) are key determinants of cardiovascular function. Ventricular–arterial coupling is most frequently assessed in the pressure–volume plane using the ratio of effective arterial elastance (EA) to LV end-systolic elastance (EES).EA (usually interpreted as a lumped index of arterial load) can be computed as end-systolic pressure/stroke volume, whereas EES (a load-independent measure of LV chamber systolic stiffness and contractility) is ideally assessed invasively using data from a family of pressure–volume loops obtained during an acute preload alteration. Single-beat methods have also been proposed, allowing for non-invasive estimations ofEES using simple echocardiographic measurements. The EA/EES ratio is useful because it provides information regarding the operating mechanical efficiency and performance of the ventricular–arterial system. However, it should be recognized that analyses in the pressure–volume plane have several limitations and that “ventricular–arterial coupling” encompasses multiple physiologic aspects, many of which are not captured in the pressure–volume plane. Therefore, additional assessments provide important incremental physiologic information about the cardiovascular system and should be more widely used. In particular, it should be recognized that: (1) comprehensive analyses of arterial load are important becauseEA poorly characterizes pulsatile LV load and does not depend exclusively on arterial properties; (2) The systolic loading sequence, an important aspect of ventricular–arterial coupling, is neglected by pressure–volume analyses, and can profoundly impact LV function, remodeling and progression to heart failure. This brief review summarizes methods for the assessment of ventricular–arterial interactions, as discussed at the Artery 12 meeting 
  • SOFA SCORE = SEPSIS RELATED ORGAN FAILURE ASSESSMENT

×