Premium
Color M‐Mode Flow Propagation Velocity: Is It Really Preload Independent?
Author(s) -
Lin ShihKai,
Hsiao ShihHung,
Lee TaoYu,
Huang WeiChen,
Hsu TsuiLieh,
Mar GuangYuan,
Liu ChunPeng
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
echocardiography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1540-8175
pISSN - 0742-2822
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2005.40078.x
Subject(s) - ejection fraction , preload , cardiology , medicine , hemodialysis , hemodynamics , heart failure
Objective: This study investigates the change in flow propagation velocity (FPV) in uremic patients who undergo regular hemodialysis (H/D). Materials and Methods: We studied 93 uremic patients (44 men and 49 women; 59 ± 14‐years‐old) receiving regular hemodialysis. Patients were separated by baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): 71 patients with LVEF > 50% (group 1), 13 patients with LVEF 35–50% (group 2), 7 patients with LVEF < 35% (group 3). All patients were in sinus rhythm before H/D. They received complete transthoracic echocardiographic examinations. Flow propagation velocity was measured by color M‐mode echocardiography in apical four chambers view. All these parameters were obtained before and after H/D. Paired data were compared. According to different H/D amounts, we viewed the FPV response after H/D in variant baseline LVEF groups. Result: The baseline FPV became lower in patients with low LVEF. After H/D, obvious decrement of FPV occurred in group 1, but there were no obvious changes in groups 2 and 3. In fact, a slight increment of FPV was found in group 3. In patients with baseline LVEF > 50%, FPV after H/D was almost always lower, regardless of H/D amount. But there was different response in patients with baseline LVEF < 50%. Conclusion: Flow propagation velocity is preload independent in patients with LVEF < 50%, but it is preload‐dependent in patients with LVEF > 50%.