Back

Diastolic Dysfunction in Congenital Heart Disease: A Pressure-Volume Loop Analysis of Borderline Left Heart

Thatte, N.; Liberman, M.; Hammer, P. E.; Callahan, R.; Esch, J.; Farias, M.; Marx, G. R.; Beroukhim, R. S.; Feins, E.; Emani, S. M.; Ghelani, S. J.

2026-01-16 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.01.13.26344073
Show abstract

BackgroundDiastolic dysfunction is a major driver of morbidity in congenital heart disease (CHD), but its mechanisms are poorly understood. It remains unknown whether left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction in borderline left heart patients is caused by a defect in active relaxation or in passive compliance. ObjectivesWe sought to apply gold-standard pressure-volume (PV) loop analysis to define the primary mechanism of diastolic dysfunction in patients with borderline LV (bLV). MethodsWe analyzed invasive PV loop data from pediatric patients with bLV (n =13) and a comparison group of patients with congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (ccTGA, presumed no diastolic dysfunction; n=14). PV loops were generated during transient preload reduction and augmentation. Active relaxation was assessed by the isovolumic relaxation time-constant ({tau}) and maximal rate of pressure decline (dP/dtmin) indexed to peak-systolic pressure (PSP). Passive compliance was quantified by the chamber stiffness constant ({beta}), derived from the multi-beat end-diastolic PV relationship (EDPVR). To account for size differences, {beta} was (1) calculated using indexed ventricular volumes (i{beta}), and (2) converted to a dimensionless stiffness constant ({beta}W) by multiplying {beta} by ventricular wall volume. ResultsActive relaxation measures were similar between groups, indicating normal lusitropy in bLV ({tau} bLV: 28 [23.5-29.5] vs ccTGA: 24 [21-28] msec, p=0.10; dP/dtmin/PSP bLV: -10.6 [-11.0, -9.4] vs. ccTGA: -9.9 [-10.5, -8.7] s-1, p=0.17). In contrast, patients with bLV had markedly abnormal passive compliance. The EDPVR was shifted sharply upward and to the left, and the stiffness constants were significantly higher in the bLV group (i{beta} bLV: 0.10 [0.04-0.35] vs. ccTGA: 0.03 [0.02-0.04] m2/mL, p=0.003); {beta}W bLV: 4.08 [1.60-7.52] vs. ccTGA: 1.21 [0.95-1.77], p=0.002). ConclusionsThe primary mechanism of diastolic dysfunction in bLV is impaired passive ventricular compliance, and not impaired active relaxation. These findings suggest a limited role for lusitropic medications and therapeutic strategies that focus on mitigating ventricular stiffness (such as surgical endocardial fibroelastosis resection) may be more valuable. Condensed abstractPressure-volume loop analysis with preload alteration in pediatric congenital heart disease shows that in borderline left heart patients left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is caused by impaired passive compliance, with preserved active relaxation. This mechanistic insight suggests that interventions targeting ventricular stiffness such as surgical endocardial fibroelastosis resection may be more beneficial than the use of lusitropic medications to improve outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
based on 92 papers
Top 0.5%
17.2%
2
Circulation
based on 37 papers
Top 0.9%
10.3%
3
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
based on 30 papers
Top 0.8%
7.7%
4
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
based on 33 papers
Top 1%
7.7%
5
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 28%
6.5%
6
Hypertension
based on 20 papers
Top 0.8%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.2%
3.0%
8
Circulation: Heart Failure
based on 11 papers
Top 0.5%
3.0%
9
The American Journal of Cardiology
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
2.9%
10
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 11%
2.5%
11
European Heart Journal
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
2.5%
12
Heart Rhythm
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
13
Frontiers in Physiology
based on 18 papers
Top 1.0%
2.3%
14
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
2.3%
15
Heart
based on 10 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
16
JCI Insight
based on 63 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
17
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
based on 23 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Nature Genetics
based on 72 papers
Top 7%
1.2%
19
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 39%
0.8%
20
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
21
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 95%
0.8%
22
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
23
International Journal of Cardiology
based on 13 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
24
Open Heart
based on 18 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
25
EBioMedicine
based on 21 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
26
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
based on 12 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 18%
0.7%