Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018
Velocity-pressure loops for continuous assessment of ventricular afterload: influence of pressure measurement site.
Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. 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.
- First description and validation of a new method for estimating aortic stenosis burden and predicting the functional response to TAVI.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Velocity-pressure loops can estimate intrinsic and pharmacologically induced changes in cardiac afterload during non-cardiac surgery. An observational study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Observational
- Article
- Journal of clinical monitoring and computing end of year summary 2018: hemodynamic monitoring and management.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
VPloop, the graphical representation of pressure versus velocity, and its characteristic angles, GALA and β, can be used to monitor cardiac afterload during anesthesia. Ideally VPloop should be measured from pressure and velocity obtained at the same arterial location but standard of care usually provide either radial or femoral pressure waveforms. The purpose of this study was to look at the influence of arterial sites and the use of a transfer function (TF) on VPloop and its related angles. Invasive pressure signals were recorded in 25 patients undergoing neuroradiology intervention under general anesthesia with transesophageal flow velocity monitoring. Pressures were recorded in the descending thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, femoral and radial arteries. We compared GALA and β from VPloops generated from each location and in high and low risk patients. GALA was similar in the central locations (55°[49-63], 52°[47-61] and 54°[45-62] from descending thoracic to femoral artery, median[interquartile], p = 0.10), while there was a difference in β angle (16°[4-27] to 8°[3-15], p < 0.0001). GALA and β obtained from radial waveforms were different (39°[31-47] compared to 46°[36-54] and 6°[2-14] compared to 16°[4-27] for GALA and β angles respectively, p < 0.001) which was corrected by the use of a TF (45°[32-55] and 17°[5-28], p = ns). GALA and β are underestimated when measured with a radial catheter. Using pressure waveforms from femoral locations alters VPloops, GALA and β in a smaller extend. The use of a TF on radial pressure allows to correctly plot VPloops and their characteristic angles for routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29188414What 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.