Display options
Share it on

Intensive Care Med Exp. 2021 Dec 20;9(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40635-021-00426-3.

Hysteretic device characteristics indicate cardiac contractile state for guiding mechanical circulatory support device use.

Intensive care medicine experimental

Brian Y Chang, Zhengyang Zhang, Kimberly Feng, Noam Josephy, Steven P Keller, Elazer R Edelman

Affiliations

  1. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  2. Program in Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  3. Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA.
  4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  5. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. [email protected].
  6. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. [email protected].

PMID: 34928472 PMCID: PMC8688616 DOI: 10.1186/s40635-021-00426-3

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock remain highly morbid conditions despite prompt medical therapy in critical care settings. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is a promising therapy for these patients, yet remains managed with open-loop control. Continuous measure of cardiac function would support and optimize MCS deployment and weaning. The nature of indwelling MCS provides a platform for attaining this information. This study investigates how hysteresis modeling derived from MCS device signals can be used to assess contractility changes to provide continuous indication of changing cardiac state. Load-dependent MCS devices vary their operation with cardiac state to yield a device-heart hysteretic interaction. Predicting and examining this hysteric relation provides insight into cardiac state and can be separated by cardiac cycle phases. Here, we demonstrate this by predicting hysteresis and using the systolic portion of the hysteresis loop to estimate changes in native contractility. This study quantified this measurement as the enclosed area of the systolic portion of the hysteresis loop and correlated it with other widely accepted contractility metrics in animal studies (n = 4) using acute interventions that alter inotropy, including a heart failure model. Clinical validation was performed in patients (n = 8) undergoing Impella support.

RESULTS: Hysteresis is well estimated from device signals alone (r = 0.92, limits of agreement: - 0.18 to 0.18). Quantified systolic area was well correlated in animal studies with end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (r = 0.84), preload recruitable stroke work index (r = 0.77), and maximum slope of left ventricular pressure (dP/dt

CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical circulatory support hysteretic behavior can be well modeled using device signals and used to estimate contractility changes. Contractility estimate is correlated with other accepted metrics, captures temporal trends that elucidate changing cardiac state, and is able to accurately indicate changes in inotropy. Inherently available during MCS deployment, this measure will guide titration and inform need for further intervention.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Keywords: Cardiovascular monitoring; Contractility; Device weaning; Hysteresis; Mechanical circulatory support

References

  1. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2019 Apr;12(2):124-134 - PubMed
  2. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005 Aug;289(2):H501-12 - PubMed
  3. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010 Jan;29(1):37-44 - PubMed
  4. ASAIO J. 2015 May-Jun;61(3):292-300 - PubMed
  5. Circulation. 1971 Jul;44(1):47-58 - PubMed
  6. Int J Artif Organs. 2009 Jun;32(6):336-43 - PubMed
  7. Sci Transl Med. 2018 Feb 28;10(430): - PubMed
  8. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020 Sep;48(9):2333-2342 - PubMed
  9. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Feb;35(2):502-13 - PubMed
  10. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 26;67(16):1881-4 - PubMed
  11. Cardiol Rev. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):1-13 - PubMed
  12. Int J Artif Organs. 2002 Nov;25(11):1082-8 - PubMed
  13. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021 Mar;68(3):905-913 - PubMed
  14. Crit Care. 2020 Mar 18;24(1):95 - PubMed
  15. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016 Aug;13(8):481-92 - PubMed
  16. Int J Artif Organs. 2015 Aug;38(8):433-43 - PubMed
  17. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Aug 3;1(4):e181456 - PubMed
  18. Circulation. 1985 May;71(5):994-1009 - PubMed
  19. Artif Organs. 2012 Aug;36(8):691-9 - PubMed
  20. Shock. 2006 Apr;25(4):370-6 - PubMed
  21. Int J Artif Organs. 2017 Jul 5;40(7):338-344 - PubMed
  22. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):901-9 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015 May;17(5):501-9 - PubMed
  24. Artif Organs. 2001 Sep;25(9):697-702 - PubMed
  25. Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(4):280-8 - PubMed
  26. Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Mar;13(3):e005853 - PubMed
  27. N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 31;369(18):1726-34 - PubMed
  28. Circ Heart Fail. 2018 May;11(5):e004397 - PubMed
  29. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011 Aug;24(8):878-85 - PubMed
  30. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018 Dec;7(8):755-765 - PubMed
  31. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Oct;66(10):2800-2808 - PubMed
  32. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Dec 15;66(23):2663-2674 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support