Pre-ejection period, the reason why the electrocardiogram Q-wave is an unreliable indicator of pulse wave initialization. (24th September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Balmer, Joel; Pretty, Christopher; Davidson, Shaun; Desaive, Thomas; Kamoi, Shun; Pironet, Antoine; Morimont, Philippe; Janssen, Nathalie; Lambermont, Bernard; Shaw, Geoffrey M; Chase, J Geoffrey
• Is Part Of: Physiological measurement. Volume 39:Number 9(2018:Sep.)
• Publication Date: 2018-09-24
• Subjects: pulse transit time -- pulse wave velocity -- pre-ejection period -- electrocardiogram -- compliance; Physiology -- Measurement -- Periodicals; Patient monitoring -- Periodicals; 612
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/aada72
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0967-3334

Abstract

Abstract: Objective : Pulse wave velocity measurements are an indicator of arterial stiffness and possible cardiovascular dysfunction. It is usually calculated by measuring the pulse transit time (PTT) over a known distance through the arteries. In animal studies, reliable PTT measures can be obtained using two pressure catheters. However, such direct, invasive methods are undesirable in clinical settings. A less invasive alternative measure of PTT is pulse arrival time (PAT), the time between the Q-wave of an electrocardiogram (ECG) and the arrival of the foot of the beats pressure waveform at one pressure catheter. Since the Q-wave signifies the start of ventricular contraction, PAT includes the pre-ejection period (PEP), a time where no blood is ejected. Thus, inter- or intra- subject variation in PEP could result in poor correlation between pulse arrival time (PAT) and the desired pulse transit time (PTT). Approach : This study looks at the relationship between PAT and PTT, over a range of common critical care therapies and determines the effect of PEP on PAT as a possible surrogate of PTT in a critical care environment. The analysis uses data from five porcine experiments, where ECG, aortic arch and abdominal aortic pressure were measured simultaneously, over a range of induced hemodynamic conditions. Results : The resulting correlations of PAT verse PTT varied within pigs and across interventions ( r 2 = 0.32–0.69), and across pigs ( r 2 = 0.05–0.60). Variability was due to three main causes. First, the interventions themselves effect PEP and PTT differently, second, pig specific response to the interventions, and third, inter- and intra- pig variability in PEP, independent of PTT. Significance : The overall analysis shows PAT is an unreliable measure of PTT and a poor surrogate under clinical interventions common in a critical care setting, due to intra- and inter- subject variability in PEP.