ArticlePloS one2017
Minimally invasive estimation of ventricular dead space volume through use of Frank-Starling curves.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Filling Fraction and Single Beat Method for Estimating Dead-Space Volume of Left Ventricle.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2026Article
- Accurate end systole detection in dicrotic notch-less arterial pressure waveforms.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Article
- Blood pressure waveform contour analysis for assessing peripheral resistance changes in sepsis.Biomedical engineering online · 2018Article
- Minimally invasive, patient specific, beat-by-beat estimation of left ventricular time varying elastance.Biomedical engineering online · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper develops a means of more easily and less invasively estimating ventricular dead space volume (Vd), an important, but difficult to measure physiological parameter. Vd represents a subject and condition dependent portion of measured ventricular volume that is not actively participating in ventricular function. It is employed in models based on the time varying elastance concept, which see widespread use in haemodynamic studies, and may have direct diagnostic use. The proposed method involves linear extrapolation of a Frank-Starling curve (stroke volume vs end-diastolic volume) and its end-systolic equivalent (stroke volume vs end-systolic volume), developed across normal clinical procedures such as recruitment manoeuvres, to their point of intersection with the y-axis (where stroke volume is 0) to determine Vd. To demonstrate the broad applicability of the method, it was validated across a cohort of six sedated and anaesthetised male Pietrain pigs, encompassing a variety of cardiac states from healthy baseline behaviour to circulatory failure due to septic shock induced by endotoxin infusion. Linear extrapolation of the curves was supported by strong linear correlation coefficients of R = 0.78 and R = 0.80 average for pre- and post- endotoxin infusion respectively, as well as good agreement between the two linearly extrapolated y-intercepts (Vd) for each subject (no more than 7.8% variation). Method validity was further supported by the physiologically reasonable Vd values produced, equivalent to 44.3-53.1% and 49.3-82.6% of baseline end-systolic volume before and after endotoxin infusion respectively. This method has the potential to allow Vd to be estimated without a particularly demanding, specialised protocol in an experimental environment. Further, due to the common use of both mechanical ventilation and recruitment manoeuvres in intensive care, this method, subject to the availability of multi-beat echocardiography, has the potential to allow for estimation of Vd in a clinical environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.