TY - JOUR
T1 - Noninvasive measures of pulsatility and blood pressure during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support
AU - Rangasamy, Sabarivinoth
AU - Madan, Shivank
AU - Saeed, Omar
AU - Goldstein, Daniel J.
AU - Jorde, Ulrich P.
AU - Negassa, Abdissa
AU - Patel, Snehal R.
N1 - Funding Information:
Submitted for consideration September 2017; accepted for publication in revised form March. Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. This study was supported by intramural research funds.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/3/1
Y1 - 2019/3/1
N2 - The reliability and validity of a palpable pulse and other noninvasive measures of pulsatility in patients on continuous-flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support have not been rigorously evaluated. We prospectively enrolled 23 patients who had CF-LVAD and an arterial catheter for blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Pulse pressure (PP) via the arterial line was compared with three noninvasive measures of pulsatility: presence of a palpable pulse, pulsatility index (PI), and aortic valve opening (AVO). In addition, the relationship between Doppler BP (DopBP) and arterial line pressures was evaluated. The study group comprised 30% females, 73% nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 87% axial flow device (HeartMate II [HMII]), and 13% centrifugal flow device (HeartWare ventricular assist device [HVAD]) support. Among four practitioners, the interobserver agreement for the presence of a palpable pulse was moderate (k = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60). If the PP was ≥15 mm Hg, a radial pulse was palpated 82% of the time, whereas when the PP was <15 mm Hg, a radial pulse was palpated only 35% of the time. In subjects with a palpable pulse, there was a strong correlation between DopBP and systolic BP (SBP) (r = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), whereas the correlation between DopBP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was much weaker (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96). In subjects without a palpable pulse, there was a strong correlation between both the DopBP and SBP (r = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.0) and DopBP and MAP (r = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00). Finally, PP was significantly associated with PI (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45; p = 0.0002) but not AVO (OR, 1.41: 95% CI, 0.70-2.83; p = 0.33). The presence of a palpable pulse has good interobserver agreement and allows for dichotomization of the DopBP to reflect the SBP in its presence and the MAP in its absence. This simple measure should be incorporated into BP management algorithms for CF-LVADs. The PI shows a modest correlation to PP.
AB - The reliability and validity of a palpable pulse and other noninvasive measures of pulsatility in patients on continuous-flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support have not been rigorously evaluated. We prospectively enrolled 23 patients who had CF-LVAD and an arterial catheter for blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Pulse pressure (PP) via the arterial line was compared with three noninvasive measures of pulsatility: presence of a palpable pulse, pulsatility index (PI), and aortic valve opening (AVO). In addition, the relationship between Doppler BP (DopBP) and arterial line pressures was evaluated. The study group comprised 30% females, 73% nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 87% axial flow device (HeartMate II [HMII]), and 13% centrifugal flow device (HeartWare ventricular assist device [HVAD]) support. Among four practitioners, the interobserver agreement for the presence of a palpable pulse was moderate (k = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60). If the PP was ≥15 mm Hg, a radial pulse was palpated 82% of the time, whereas when the PP was <15 mm Hg, a radial pulse was palpated only 35% of the time. In subjects with a palpable pulse, there was a strong correlation between DopBP and systolic BP (SBP) (r = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), whereas the correlation between DopBP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was much weaker (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96). In subjects without a palpable pulse, there was a strong correlation between both the DopBP and SBP (r = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.0) and DopBP and MAP (r = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00). Finally, PP was significantly associated with PI (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14-0.45; p = 0.0002) but not AVO (OR, 1.41: 95% CI, 0.70-2.83; p = 0.33). The presence of a palpable pulse has good interobserver agreement and allows for dichotomization of the DopBP to reflect the SBP in its presence and the MAP in its absence. This simple measure should be incorporated into BP management algorithms for CF-LVADs. The PI shows a modest correlation to PP.
KW - Doppler blood pressure
KW - palpable pulse
KW - pulsatility
KW - pulsatility index
KW - pulse pressure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064861754&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064861754&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000805
DO - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000805
M3 - Article
C2 - 29734257
AN - SCOPUS:85064861754
SN - 1058-2916
VL - 65
SP - 241
EP - 246
JO - ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)
JF - ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)
IS - 3
ER -