Physiologic evaluation of a catheter tip electromagnetic velocity probe

Warbasse, J.Richard; Hellman, Barry H.; Gillilan, Ronald E.; Hawley, Richard R.; Babitt, Henry I.

doi:10.1016/0002-9149(69)90524-4

Cited by 21 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Volumetric flow scales were established by setting the summated systolic areas under the flow velocity wave forms equal to the Fick-determined cardiac outputs scaled to the period of integration. The validity of using catheter-mounted electromagnetic flow velocity probes in studying ascending aortic flow in man has been previously reported by several other investigators (25,(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36).…”

Section: Data Processing and A Naltjsismentioning

confidence: 57%

Dynamics of left ventricular ejection in obstructive and nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Murgo¹,

et al. 1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T The purpose of this study was to examine the dynamics of left ventricular ejection in patients with obstructive and nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). 30 patients with HCM and 29 patients with no evidence of cardiovascular disease were studied during cardiac catheterization. Using a single multisensor catheter, electromagnetically derived ascending aortic flow velocity and high fidelity left ventricular and aortic pressures were recorded during rest (tl = 47) and provocative maneuvers (it = 23). Dynamic ventricular emptying during rest was also analyzed with frame-by-frame angiography (n = 46). Left ventricular outflow was independently derived from both flow velocity and angiographic techniques. The HCM patients were subdivided into three groups: (I) intraventricular gradients at rest (n = 9), (II) intraventricular gradients only with provocation (n = 12), and (III) no intraventricular gradients despite provocation (n = 9). During rest, the percentage of the total systolic ejection period during which forward aortic flow existed was as follows (mean+ 1 SD): group I, 69+17% (flowv), 64±6% (angio); group II, 63 +14% (flow), 65±+6% (angio); group III, 61+16% (flow), 62±+4% (angio); control group, 90±o5% (flow), 86±+9% (angio). No significant difference was observed between any of the HCM subgroups, but compared with the control group, ejection was completed much earlier in systole independent of the

show abstract