HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, K. B. Articles by Slinker, B. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Campbell, K. B. Articles by Slinker, B. K.

Dynamic myocardial contractile parameters from left ventricular pressure-volume measurements

¹Department of Veterinary and Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology, and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington; and ²Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Submitted 10 October 2004 ; accepted in final form 8 December 2004

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
A new dynamic model of left ventricular (LV) pressure-volume relationships in beating heart was developed by mathematically linking chamber pressure-volume dynamics with cardiac muscle force-length dynamics. The dynamic LV model accounted for >80% of the measured variation in pressure caused by small-amplitude volume perturbation in an otherwise isovolumically beating, isolated rat heart. The dynamic LV model produced good fits to pressure responses to volume perturbations, but there existed some systematic features in the residual errors of the fits. The issue was whether these residual errors would be damaging to an application where the dynamic LV model was used with LV pressure and volume measurements to estimate myocardial contractile parameters. Good agreement among myocardial parameters responsible for response magnitude was found between those derived by geometric transformations of parameters of the dynamic LV model estimated in beating heart and those found by direct measurement in constantly activated, isolated muscle fibers. Good agreement was also found among myocardial kinetic parameters estimated in each of the two preparations. Thus the small systematic residual errors from fitting the LV model to the dynamic pressure-volume measurements do not interfere with use of the dynamic LV model to estimate contractile parameters of myocardium. Dynamic contractile behavior of cardiac muscle can now be obtained from a beating heart by judicious application of the dynamic LV model to information-rich pressure and volume signals. This provides for the first time a bridge between the dynamics of cardiac muscle function and the dynamics of heart function and allows a beating heart to be used in studies where the relevance of myofilament contractile behavior to cardiovascular system function may be investigated.

heart function; muscle; mathematical model; cardiac fiber; force

A long-term approach for linking heart and muscle has been to describe similarities in muscle and whole heart behaviors; similarities between the isometric force-length relationship of frog skeletal muscle and the isovolumic pressure-volume relationship of frog heart being the classical muscle-heart analogy (23). Many other similarity associations have been made of a broad scope of behaviors ranging from similarities in the end-shortening muscle force-length and end-systolic LV pressure-volume relationships (1, 20, 27, 48) to similarities in step and frequency responses of constantly activated heart and muscle (8, 11, 14, 15). Just as common has been the use of simple geometric transformations to derive muscle contraction relationships from LV measurements (5, 7, 44) or to reconstruct LV behaviors from muscle measurements (22, 39). Despite these many efforts, an unambiguous linkage with quantitatively verified associations has never been achieved.

Simultaneous with these experimentally based attempts were several modeling efforts in which elemental muscle contractile behavior was integrated mathematically with wall material properties, wall architecture and geometry, and chamber geometry in attempts to synthesize global organ function (25, 31, 33, 34, 36, 65). These efforts continue today with promise of eventual success (19, 26, 37), but because of the massive complexity of the problem, they are presently without practical results that may easily be implemented either experimentally or clinically.

A major problem in linking muscle contraction with LV mechanical behavior has been the reliance on inappropriate characterizations at the muscle level for making this link. For instance, the two most commonly used descriptors of muscle contraction, length-tension and force-velocity, are actually special cases with respect to contraction time and load, i.e., peak force during isometric contraction in the case of length-tension and initial shortening velocity against isotonic load in the case of force-velocity. These descriptors are not necessarily applicable to the dynamic history throughout a contraction event.

An alternative to length-tension and force-velocity descriptors of contraction is the dynamic stiffness of constantly activated muscle. Dynamic stiffness focuses on frequency-dependent force-length relations during small length changes and is profoundly sensitive to myofilament kinetic processes (3, 4, 30, 35, 46, 50, 51, 57, 62, 63, 66). Importantly, the frequency-domain expression of dynamic stiffness may be easily converted into an equivalent time-domain expression that allows prediction of the transient time course of muscle force in response to muscle length perturbations. Using the notion that myocardial dynamics are governed by both the dynamics of cross-bridge recruitment and the separate dynamics of cross-bridge distortion (12, 42), we recently constructed a simple differential equation representation of dynamic stiffness that accurately reproduces both transient and steady-state length-induced myocardial dynamic behaviors between 0.1 and 40 Hz (9). Interestingly, this model of muscle has the same mathematical form and dynamic time constants as an earlier LV model we developed from purely phenomenological evidence to describe the dynamic pressure-volume relationship in constantly activated heart (15). The implication of this model equivalence is that contractile force-length dynamics of myocardium are expressed in unaltered form in pressure-volume dynamics of the LV chamber. Thus the challenge became one of extending this analogy to beating heart. In this study, we show how to make this extension, allowing myocardial contractile parameters to be estimated from pressure-volume measurements taken in beating heart. This forges the long-sought link between myocardial contractile dynamics and whole heart pressure-volume behavior.

	Glossary

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 

A_i

Magnitude scalar for ith sine wave component of V(t) signal

b

Rate constant of recruitment

c

Rate constant of distortion

D

Time derivative operator (=d/dt)

E(t)

Time-varying left ventricular (LV) elastance

E(t)-R

Elastance-resistance LV model

E{}

Dynamic elastance operator

E₀

Zero-frequency LV elastance

E

Infinite-frequency LV elastance

E_P

Passive elastance

e(i)

Residual errors

F(t)

Midwall fiber force

f₀

Heart pacing frequency

f_min

Frequency of minimal stiffness

H{}

Dynamic operator that maps LV inputs to LV pressure

I{}

Dynamic interactance operator

I₀

Zero-frequency LV interactance

I

Infinite-frequency LV interactance

L(t)

Length of midwall circumference

L_BL

Baseline midwall circumference

n_i

Frequency multiplier of f₀ for ith sine wave component of V(t) signal

P(t)

LV chamber pressure

Average pressure during isovolumic beat

PF_f

Force-to-pressure transforming factor

P_I(t)

LV pressure component due to interactance

P_iso(t)

Isovolumic pressure

P_p(t)

Passive pressure

P_R(t)

LV pressure component due to remainder terms in Taylor series

r

Rate constant of R{}

R{}

Dynamic operator that maps y(t) into P_R(t)

R₀

Magnitude of R{}

V(t)

LV chamber volume

V_BL

Baseline LV chamber volume

V_w

LV wall volume

x(t)

Cardiac muscle distortion variable

y(t)

Inputs responsible for P_R(t)

Q₁₀

Ratio of reaction rate at one temperature and reaction rate at a temperature 10°C lower

F(t)

Changes in cardiac muscle force

L(t)

Changes in cardiac muscle length

,

Viscoelastic parameters of passive left ventricle

₀

Scalar parameter for elastance

₀

Scalar parameter for resistance

{}

Dynamic stiffness operator

₀

Zero-frequency cardiac muscle stiffness

Infinite-frequency cardiac muscle stiffness

(j)

Frequency-dependent muscle fiber stiffness

(t)

LV interactance recruitment variable

(t)

LV volume recruitment variable

(t)

Cardiac muscle recruitment variable

(t)

LV volume distortion variable

(t)

LV interactance distortion variable

Building a Quantitative Link Between Cardiac Muscle Dynamics and LV Dynamics

Cardiac muscle dynamics: constant activation. The kernel for LV pressure-volume dynamics resides in the force-length dynamics of contracting cardiac muscle. To investigate these dynamics, we dissected bundles of fibers from the papillary muscle of rat hearts, removed the cell membranes with detergent to control activation at constant levels, and mounted these skinned fibers in an apparatus that allowed servo control of14fiber length (9). We then measured force development and response to length change during constant Ca²⁺ activation. Fiber length was changed over 45 s according to a command signal that specified small-amplitude, sinusoidal length variations in a frequency sweep from 0.1 to 40 Hz (Fig. 1).

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Force response (F) from cardiac muscle fiber (top) during frequency-sweep length-change (L) protocol (bottom). Measured force response (top; gray tracing) and model prediction from curve fitting Eqs. 1–3 to the measured force signal (black lines overlaying gray tracing) are compared. Expanded time scale at end of time period displays the last 0.2 s of the record during high-frequency (40 Hz) length change. Note the good model reproduction of amplitude and phase throughout the record from lowest to highest frequencies. Time point during frequency-sweep protocol of minimal-amplitude force response is shown (arrow). [Figure constructed from previously published data (8).]

(1)

(2)

(3)

In these equations, a dot over a variable represents the first time derivative; L(t) is the measured change in length imposed upon the muscle; F(t) is the model-predicted force in response to L(t); (t) is the recruitment variable; and x(t) is the distortion variable. Both (t) and x(t) possess units of length. Parameters ₀ and b represent the magnitude and rate constant of the slow recruitment response; parameters and c represent the magnitude and rate constant of the fast distortion response. Both ₀ and possess units of stiffness.

When this model was fit to force responses in 118 records obtained from 19 fibers collected from 4 species with widely varying myofilament protein compositions, >98% of all the measured variation in the force response was explained (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the remaining unexplained variation was not correlated with the L(t) input and thus could not be accounted for by any improvement in the model. Thus Eqs. 1–3 were accepted as suitable representation of force-length dynamics in constantly activated cardiac muscle.

To be consistent with mathematical developments, in the APPENDIX we consider the alternative expression for Eqs. 1–3 by writing the relation between F(t) and L(t) in input-output terms. For this, we use a dynamic operator that carries the physical units of stiffness. Employing the symbol D to represent differentiation with respect to time, D = (d/dt){}, Eqs. 1–3 may be written in the alternative but equivalent form

(4)

In Eq. 4, all terms within the square brackets constitute a dynamic operator that operates on the input, L(t), to produce an output, F(t). Let represent the operator in square brackets. Then the dynamic force-length relation of cardiac muscle may be succinctly written as

(5)

The dynamic operator {} has physical units of stiffness. Conversion of {} to the frequency domain changes D to the complex frequency variable j and allows construction of the stiffness frequency spectrum.

Dynamic Muscle Stiffness (Constant Activation) is Converted to Dynamic LV Elastance (Constant Activation) by Geometric Transformation

Cardiac muscle fibers constitute the majority of the material of the LV wall and are arranged in a complicated pattern of spiraling sheets. However, in the midwall, fibers are circumferentially arranged and serially connected along the midwall circumference (Fig. 2). The centrality of these circumferential midwall fibers in the overall arrangement allows them to be taken as representative of all muscle fibers in heart providing that the distribution of material and physiological properties satisfies the condition of essential homogeneity as documented by uniform sarcomere-shortening patterns throughout myocardium (2, 21, 24, 43). Thus the force and length of an average circumferentially oriented fiber are representative of the force-length behavior of all the muscle fibers in the wall. By assuming spherical geometry, the transformation of force and length of the representative muscle fiber into pressure and volume of the LV chamber may be carried out by steps as indicated in Fig. 3.

View larger version (51K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Muscle fibers are arranged circumferentially at the left ventricular (LV) midwall. Assuming a thick-walled sphere with homogenous material and physiological properties, a simple geometric transformation allows chamber volume [V(t)] to be converted to midwall length [L(t)], and force per unit area at the midwall circumference [F(t)] to be converted to chamber pressure [P(t)].

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Logic for transforming LV chamber volume [V(t)] into chamber pressure [P(t)] through the dynamic force-length [F(t)-L(t)] characteristics of cardiac muscle.

(6)

and a circumferential stress (force per cross-sectional area) to chamber-pressure transformation is given by

(7)

Although spherical geometry was used in the wall/chamber geometric transforming factors, small volume variation results in these factors being essentially constant regardless of the geometry. Thus small volume variations, because they do not cause appreciable variation in the transforming factors, allow a linear transformation of the model for force-length relations of the myofiber into an analogous model for pressure-volume relations in the left ventricle. For example, consider that measurements are made of LV pressure and volume. Then, for small V around a baseline volume (V_BL), the baseline length (L_BL) of a representative midwall circumference will be

(8)

Furthermore, the force per unit cross-sectional area at the midwall is given by

where the pressure-force transforming factor PF_f is (from Eq. 7)

(9)

With the use of these transformations, it can be shown that the relationship between a generic midwall muscle stiffness, = dF/dL, and a generic LV chamber elastance, E = dP/dV, is

(10)

Thus the pressure-volume relationship of the left ventricle, given by E, may be converted to the force-length relationship of muscle, given by , and vice versa.

Constant activation of muscle fibers to produce constant active force in heart occurs when Ba²⁺ is used as the activating agent (8). Because small volume perturbations allow linear transformation between the force-length relationship and the pressure-volume relationship according to Eq. 10, we can take advantage of the mathematical structure of in Eq. 5 and by analogy write for the analogous property of constantly activated whole heart, i.e., the dynamic elastance, E

(11)

where E₀ is the static (zero-frequency) elastance, E is the instantaneous (infinite-frequency) elastance, and b and c retain the definitions originally given in Eqs. 2 and 3. Thus the geometric transformation changes the values of the multipliers ₀ to E₀ and to E but does not affect the values of the dynamic constants b and c.

With the definition for E{} given in Eq. 11, the pressure due to elastance (P_E) and in response to a V(t) perturbation in a constantly activated heart may be written as

(12)

Alternatively, it may be written in differential equation form analogous to Eq. 1 as

(13)

where (t) is the volume recruitment variable, analogous to the length recruitment variable (t) in Eq. 2, and (t) is the volume distortion variable, analogous to the lineal distortion variable x(t) in Eq. 2. The corresponding differential equations, which are analogous to Eqs. 2 and 3, are

(14)

(15)

In fact, we have previously acquired experimental evidence that Eqs. 13–15 satisfactorily describe the steady-state pressure response to sinusoidal volume perturbations in constantly activated heart, and these are analogous to the equations that describe the steady-state force response to sinusoidal length perturbations of constantly activated papillary muscle (15).

Dynamic LV Elastance (Constant Activation) is Converted to Dynamic LV Interactance (Variable Activation) in Beating Heart

Now the challenge is to apply the above framework for myocardial-based dynamics of constantly activated left ventricle to beating heart, where activation is not constant. We summarize here the results of a more complete mathematical analysis of LV pressure-volume relationships during small volume perturbations of the otherwise isovolumic beating heart given in the APPENDIX. In this analysis, the pressure [P(t)] generated during a beat undergoing volume perturbation [V(t)] depends on both V(t) and the isovolumic pressure [P_iso(t)] that would have developed had no V(t) been administered.

In general, the dependence of P(t) on V(t) and P_iso(t) involves history (memory) of the system. To include history effects, it is useful to write the P(t) dependence in terms of a dynamic operator, H{}, i.e.

(16)

Equation 16 says that P(t) is the result of the mathematical operation H{} on two input functions, V(t) and P_iso(t). The dynamic operator H{} has a mathematical character similar to E{} in that it contains the time-derivative operator D as one of its primitive components; other primitive operators include scalars, summers, and multipliers.

A sequence of mathematical steps including a Taylor series expansion of Eq. 16 enables us to write an expression for the pressure response [P(t)] to a small-amplitude volume perturbation in terms of the following: 1) an elastance pressure [P_E(t)] due to the action of V(t) alone as if V(t) were applied to the left ventricle, generating a constant pressure equal to the mean of P_iso(t); 2) an interactance pressure [P_I(t)] due to the interaction of V(t) and the variation of P_iso(t) around its mean value[P_iso(t)]; and 3) a residual pressure [P_R(t)] due to the sum of all the residual higher-order terms in the Taylor series.

Thus

(17)

In this, the elastance pressure P_E(t) is given by Eqs. 12–15 as if the heart is constantly activated to generate a pressure equal to the mean of P_iso(t). The interactance pressure P_I(t), which is of prime importance in this problem, may be couched in a form similar to our earlier expression, Eq. 12, for P_E(t)

(18)

where the operator I{} operates dynamically on the product V(t)P_iso(t), which may be treated as a time signal defined as u(t) = V(t)P_iso(t). Furthermore, it is shown in the APPENDIX that I relates to E through differentiation with respect to P_iso(t) as follows:

(19)

We make use of the specific formulation for E{} in Eq. 11 to derive a specific formulation for I{} from Eq. 19. We assume that of the E parameters, only the scaling coefficients E₀ and E change with P_iso, whereas the recruitment rate constant b and the distortion rate constant c do not. With this assumption, I may be represented as

(20)

where E₀/P_iso is the slope of E₀ dependence on P_iso (let I₀ = E₀/P_iso), and E/P_iso is the slope of i dependence on P_iso (let I = E/P_iso). Substitution yields

(21)

In the manner of the elastance example, we can now write the dynamic operations of Eq. 18 in differential equation format

(22)

where (t) is a time function with units of work (mmHg·ml) given by the first-order differential equation

(23)

and (t) is a time function also with units of work (mmHg·ml) given by

(24)

The rate constants b and c are the same recruitment and distortion rate constants as in the elastance equations, Eqs. 14 and 15. The physical units of I₀ and I are reciprocal volume (ml^–1).

In the APPENDIX, it is shown that for the mean of the isovolumic pressure over the beat period () that

(25)

and

(26)

The remainder term [P_R(t)], because it consists of lumping several higher-order terms in the Taylor series together, has few guidelines for representing its operator and the signal upon which it operates. Because it is a remainder of higher-order terms, it is assumed that P_R(t) is small relative to P_I(t), and its exact representation is less important to the problem than a correct representation of P_I(t). Here we take an ad hoc approach and express the pressure due to these remainder terms, P_R(t), in a dynamic form, i.e.

(27)

where it is understood that R{}, like E{} and I{}, is a dynamic operator, and y(t) is an appropriate signal to be defined.

We imposed the constraints that R{} be of low dynamic order and that it add no more than two unknown parameters to the overall model. Furthermore, likening P_R(t) to a deactivation effect (19, 28, 29), we assumed that deactivation comes about as a result of distortion. Distortion is expressed in P_E(t) and P_I(t) by the terms E(t) and I(t). We caused this deactivation to be independent of direction by assigning the forcing function y(t) to the square of the sum of these distortion-related terms

(28)

With this, R{} was represented as

(29)

where R₀ is a magnitude parameter and r is a rate constant. The corresponding differential equation is

(30)

Summary of Quantitative Muscle-Left Ventricle Linkage

A dynamic kernel for LV dynamics was derived from dynamic force-length relations in constantly activated cardiac muscle fibers. Geometric transformation was used to convert dynamic force-length relationship of a representative midwall myofiber into dynamic pressure-volume relationship in the left ventricle of constantly activated heart. Applying the calculus of variation and a Taylor series expansion to the dependence of LV pressure on both the volume perturbation and the isovolumic pressure during beating (see APPENDIX), the pressure response to a volume perturbation was found to consist of three components as follows: a component due to the dynamic elastance referenced to the mean isovolumic pressure, a component due to the interactance between the volume variation and the pressure variation around its mean, and a component due to a remainder term consisting of higher-order terms in the Taylor series.

Summarizing the model equations

(a)

(b)

(b1)

(b2)

(c)

(c1)

(c2)

(d)

We refer to Eqs. a–d as the dynamic LV model. The dynamic LV model equations contain five state variables [(t), (t), (t), (t), and P_R(t)] and eight parameters including five magnitude-scaling parameters (E₀, E, I₀, I, and R₀) and three rate constants (b, c, and r). Equations 25 and 26 demonstrate that E₀ and E are not independent of I₀ and I. Thus there are only six free parameters in the model equation set. (Note that as a consequence of the interdependence of E₀ and I₀ and E and I, a simpler rendition of Eqs. a–d can be written; see APPENDIX. However, this simpler rendition obscures the origins of the components of the pressure response, which are important for understanding the model and how it arises.)

	METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
Experimental Protocol

Hearts for these studies were obtained from rats according to a protocol approved by the Washington State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. All animals in this study received humane care in compliance with the animal use principles of the American Physiological Society and the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care formulated by the National Society of Medical Research and the National Institutes of Health's Guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH Publication No. 85-23, Revised 1985).

Hearts were isolated from young adult male rats (2–6 mo of age; 300–500 g body wt) after administration of anesthesia [that contained (in mg/kg im) 50 ketamine, 5 xylazine, and 1 acepromazine]. Upon excision of the heart, the aorta was quickly cannulated and the heart was immediately perfused through the aortic cannula with Krebs-Henseleit solution (Ca²⁺ concentration, 1.25 mM) that contained high levels of dissolved O₂ (PO₂ > 600 mmHg) at a constant perfusion pressure of 100 mmHg. Hearts were mounted onto an experimental system that consisted of a constant-pressure perfusion subsystem, an environmental control subsystem, a pacing-control subsystem, and a volume servo subsystem. A latex balloon attached to the obturator of the volume servo subsystem and sized so as to not develop measurable pressure when inflated to 500 µl was inserted into the LV chamber through the mitral orifice. The mitral annulus was secured to the obturator. Mounted and perfused hearts were then submerged in perfusate in a temperature-controlled environmental chamber that kept the epicardial surface wet and allowed for field stimulation. Electrical pacing was initiated using a computer-controlled stimulator and field electrodes placed in the bath of the environmental chamber on either side of the heart. The balloon was inflated to a reference volume [V_BL], which was defined as the volume necessary to achieve an end-diastolic pressure of 5 mmHg. LV pressure [P(t)] was measured with a 3-Fr catheter-tip Millar pressure transducer that was passed through a port in the volume servo system through the lumen of the obturator and positioned in the balloon within the LV chamber. Experiments were conducted at both 37 and 25°C by adjusting the temperature of the perfusate and the water circulating through the jackets of the experimental subsystems.

The LV balloon was connected to a computer-controlled volume servo system with a displacement piston in a servo chamber. Movement of the piston displaced volume out of or into the LV balloon according to the servo command. This allowed dynamic control and perturbation of LV volume with simultaneous measurement of LV pressure.

The pace period was set at 500 ms in experiments conducted at 37°C and 1,500 ms in experiments conducted at 25°C. Once stable isovolumic beating was achieved at V_BL, a single-beat Frank-Starling protocol (16) was administered to evaluate both systolic and diastolic LV functions. Criteria for acceptable preparations included the functional indices of developed pressure 100 mmHg and passive stiffness 0.7 mmHg/µl at V_BL. After we established that functional criteria were met, a volume-perturbation protocol was administered.

The volume-perturbation protocol was designed to provide pressure-response data from which model parameters could be estimated. Because dynamic behaviors associated with recruitment occur at low frequencies, whereas dynamic behaviors associated with distortion occur at higher frequencies (see Fig. 1), the perturbation protocol for parameter estimation necessarily needed to generate information at both low and high frequencies. To satisfy this requirement, six V(t) signals were constructed, each of which consisted of one of two frequency compositions and one of three mean values. Each of the two frequency composites consisted of five summed sinusoids (Table 1). Separate records were taken of the response to each applied signal

(31)

where _j = –0.02V_BL, 0, or 0.02V_BL, and f₀ = 1/(pace period). The magnitude scalar (A_i) and frequency multiplier of f₀ (n_i) for the ith sine wave component of the two different composite frequency signals were as indicated in Table 1.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Frequency composition of V(t)

Removing Passive Pressure Response From Measured Data

Pacing periods were chosen to be long enough to allow a well-defined diastolic period where pressure existed at the diastolic (passive) level without increasing or decreasing. During these diastolic periods, the pressure response to the volume perturbations was considered to be entirely due to passive LV properties. The passive left ventricle was modeled as a generalized viscoelastic body according to

(32)

where P_p(t) is passive pressure, E_P is the DC passive elastance, and and are viscoelastic parameters.

This passive-pressure model was fit (by nonlinear least squares; see below) to just that portion of the pressure response during the identified diastolic periods [P_iso(t) < 10 mmHg; two diastolic periods in each record of two beats] and the passive parameters (E_P, , and ) were thus estimated. The passive LV properties were taken to be in parallel with the active LV properties. With the use of Eq. 32 and the estimated passive parameters, that part of the total response due to passive properties was predicted throughout the data record, and the predicted passive pressure was then subtracted from the total P(t) response to leave just the active response. The active response was the signal to which the following data-fitting and parameter-estimation techniques were applied.

Data Fitting, Parameter Estimation, and Model Evaluation

The dynamic LV model was fit to the active part of the measured pressure response by solving the model equations (Eqs. a–d) for P(t) using measured V(t) and P_iso(t) as the forcing functions according to their roles in each model component. The differential equations were solved for the respective state variables by numerical integration (fourth-order Runge-Kutta) using an integration step size equal to the sampling interval of 0.001 s.

Model-generated P(t) was fit to measured P(t) by adjusting the six free model parameters (E₀, b, E, c, R₀, and r) using a modified Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (MINPACK; Argonne National Laboratory) to minimize the sum of square residual errors. Outcomes from this fitting procedure included the following: 1) the set of parameters (E₀, b, E, c, R₀, and r) that provides the best fit of the model to the measured pressure response; 2) the standard errors of the estimates for each of these parameters; 3) the model generation of best fit, (t); and 4) the time series of residual errors, e(i) = (i) – P(i), where the i index indicates sampled values of (t) and P(t).

Model evaluation consisted of indices of descriptive validity, i.e., measures of how well the model fit the data. Two measures of descriptive validity were used, including 1) the linear regression of (t) on P(t), (t) = bP(t) + p₀, and an evaluation of the regression parameters for their ideal values of b = 1 and p₀ = 0; and 2) a relative error, e_r, defined as

where, for npts data points in the sample,

is the mean square error of residuals and

is the total variance in P(t). Note that because the residual errors in this model-fitting exercise did not prove to be randomly distributed, the variance in the data that was not explained by the model was not simply 1 – R². Thus e_r was valuable as an independent measure of goodness of fit.

At the end of the experiment, all atrial and great vessel tissue was trimmed from the heart, and the heart was blotted dry. The right ventricular free wall was trimmed from the heart, and the septum plus the LV free wall was weighed. The dissected right ventricular free wall was added to the septum plus the LV free wall, and all ventricular tissue was weighed.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
Volume-Perturbation Protocol Resulted in Pressure-Response Signals With Rich Dynamic Content

The volume-perturbation protocol was successful in generating pressure responses with dynamically rich information content. An example of typical pressure responses obtained from the volume-perturbation protocol (at 25°C; pacing period, 1.5 s) is given in Fig. 4. For clarity, this example shows only a subset of two of the full ensemble of six records to which the model was fit (_j = 0, frequency compositions 1 and 2). Note that at this pacing rate, there is 0.5 s of diastole during which passive LV properties could be estimated using Eq. 32. The P(t) signal shown in Fig. 4 (bottom) consisted of just the active part of the response (i.e., the passive response has been removed). Note the difference in P(t) trajectory on the first and second beats in each of the two records, as these correspond to the positive- and negative-going halves of the slowest frequency sinusoid (f₀, 0.5) in the volume-perturbation signal (Table 1). Also, note the different shape and form of P(t) when V(t) consisted of frequency composition 1 (Fig. 4, left) compared with when it consisted of frequency composition 2 (Fig. 4, right). With the combination of the trajectories and shapes represented in the full set of six records in the volume-perturbation protocol, sufficient information was present in the combined records to estimate model parameters that selectively influenced low- and high-frequency behaviors.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Two 3-s records of composite frequency volume-perturbation protocol. Pacing frequency (f0) equaled 0.67 Hz. Volume perturbation consisted of a different combination of five frequencies between 0.5 and 32 f0 in each record (left vs. right). Top: pressure [P(t)] was recorded during isovolumic beating (thin lines) and volume perturbation (thick lines). Middle: volume-perturbation signals. Bottom: pressure response [P(t)] to volume perturbation was calculated as the difference between pressure during volume perturbation and isovolumic pressure; different shapes of P(t) (left vs. right) are due to different frequency contents of V(t).

The dynamic LV model, when fit to the data, reproduced all identifiable qualitative features in the response records. Qualitative comparison of a measured response during a single beat with a model-generated response for that beat demonstrated feature-by-feature reproduction (Fig. 5) including 1) large-amplitude responses during systole and virtually no response during diastole, 2) variation in response amplitude over the time course of the systolic interval, and 3) characteristic differences in shapes of the responses to volume perturbations with differing frequency content. When comparison is made between the first and second beats in the record, the trajectory of response during beat 1 (during the positive half of the slowest volume sine wave in the perturbation signal) was always above that of response during beat 2 (during the negative half of the slowest volume sine wave in the perturbation signal) in both the measured and model-generated signals. When comparison was made of the responses in records at different _j, the trajectory of response at _j = 0.02V_BL was always above that at _j = 0, which was above the trajectory at _j = –0.02V_BL in both measured and model-generated records.

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and model-generated pressure responses. Systolic and diastolic periods of the beat are identified; diastole includes late relaxation. In each graph, the first (solid line) and second (dashed line) beats of the two beats in each response record are shown to demonstrate the differences in response trajectories of these two beats. Differences in responses to volume perturbations consisting of frequency compositions 1 and 2 are also reproduced by the model. See text for additional explanation.

View larger version (51K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Fit of dynamic LV model (solid lines) to measured pressure responses (broken lines) over two beats. One set of parameters was used in the model generation of all six responses. Responses to V perturbations of one composition of five frequencies around three mean (; rows) values (left) and responses to another composition of five frequencies around the same three mean values (right) are shown. VBL, baseline LV chamber volume. See text for details.

To appreciate the capability of the dynamic LV model to closely reproduce a set of dynamically complex pressure-response records, i.e., records with representation of both low and high frequencies (Fig. 6), comparison needs to be made to the best fit to this same set of data that can be obtained using an alternative model. For this alternative, we choose the broadly applied time-varying elastance-resistance [E(t)-R] LV model. In accord with previous work (13, 29, 34, 53, 54, 60, 64), we couched the E(t)-R formulation as

(36)

Because time variation in E(t) and i(t) follows that of P_iso(t) (53, 54), Eq. 36 was written in terms of P_iso(t) and two parameters including a scalar for elastance (₀) and another for resistance (₀)

(37)

The same optimization techniques used to fit the dynamic LV model to the pressure-response records were used to fit with the E(t)-R model and to estimate the two parameters ₀ and ₀. The results from the fitting procedure (Fig. 7) exhibit a clear separation between measured and E(t)-R-predicted responses throughout systole. Not only did the low-frequency trajectories of the model-generated and measured pressure responses differ, but also, the timing of the peaks and valleys of the higher frequency components within the model-generated and measured responses did not coincide as they did with the dynamic LV model. The average R² from fitting the measured pressure responses with the E(t)-R model was only 0.37 compared with the R² of >0.80 for the dynamic LV model. Although the E(t)-R model possessed only two parameters and the dynamic LV model possessed six, we argue that the E(t)-R model could not reproduce the measured response pattern with acceptable fidelity not because of a lack of parameters, but because it did not possess the dynamic mechanisms necessary for such reproduction. The point to be made in comparing Figs. 6 and 7 is not to denigrate the E(t)-R model, but rather, to demonstrate the challenge of using a model to reproduce a dynamically rich pressure-response signal from a beating heart, and to emphasize that we have largely met that challenge with our present dynamic LV model.

View larger version (56K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Fit of elastance-resistance [E(t)-R] model (solid lines) to the same pressure responses (broken lines) shown in Fig. 6. Inability of the E(t)-R model to reproduce the measured response demonstrates the challenge of representing LV properties responsible for a broad range of dynamic behaviors. One set of parameters was used in the model generation of all six responses.

Dynamic Parameters May Be Separated Into Temperature-Insensitive (Magnitude Scaling) and Temperature-Sensitive (Kinetic Rate Constant) Groups

The estimates of parameters for all hearts and the averages of these estimates are given in Table 3. Because the most relevant of the six estimated model parameters (E₀, b, E, c, R₀, and r) were the four derived from dynamic behavior of muscle (E₀, b, E, c), we focused on these four. These four parameters may be partitioned two ways, as follows: 1) those associated with the relatively slow dynamics of recruitment of force-generating units (i₀ and b) and those associated with the relatively fast dynamics of distortion of force-generating units (E and c), or 2) parameters that scale the magnitude of the recruitment and distortion components of the response (E₀ and E) and parameters that govern the speed (kinetics) of the two components of the response (b and c). Magnitude-scaling parameters (E₀ and E) represent different aspects of the response than those aspects represented by the kinetic parameters (b and c). We asked how the magnitude-scaling parameters differ from the kinetic parameters in their dependence on temperature.

In contrast, the kinetic parameters b and c were strongly temperature dependent. The average value of b at 37°C (14.4 s^–1) was 2.4 times the average value at 25°C (6.01 s^–1), and the average value of c at 37°C (128.0 s^–1) was 2.3 times the average value at 25°C (56.3 s^–1); P < 0.001 by t-test for both b and c. Thus when comparing with equivalent kinetic parameters obtained from earlier cardiac muscle studies conducted at other temperatures, the temperature dependence of these kinetic parameters had to be taken into account.

Magnitude-Scaling LV Parameters Are Consistent With Magnitude-Scaling Muscle Parameters

Because the magnitude-scaling parameters were not affected by temperature, we lumped E values determined at 37 and 25°C together. E is referenced to the mean pressure level during isovolumic beating as if the heart muscle were constantly activated to produce the level of myocardial force commensurate with the mean pressure () during the beat. Geometric transformation (Eq. 7) was used to convert to a representative midwall force (F). Additional geometric transformation (Eq. 10) was used to transform the estimated chamber E to the corresponding midwall . The resulting vs. F relation from calculations in all 20 hearts is given by the data points in Fig. 8. Theoretically and experimentally (9), there is a linear relationship between steady-state active force produced by a constantly activated muscle and the infinite frequency stiffness () of the muscle fiber. The regression line describing this linear relationship for data previously collected in 19 cardiac muscle fibers at varying levels of activation is plotted in Fig. 8 along with the 95% tolerance limits (9) for observations around the regression line. Of the 20 vs. F points derived by geometric transformation of E and from the 20 hearts studied, 18 fall on or within the 95% tolerance limits for the muscle fiber regression. That is, the observations of vs. F obtained from estimates in beating heart using our dynamic LV model appear to be members of the same population as defined by the relationship between and F found from experiments using constantly activated, isolated cardiac muscle fibers. This remarkable result leads to the conclusion that parameters estimated from fitting the dynamic LV model to dynamic pressure-volume behaviors may be reliably used to estimate stiffness vs. force relations in representative midwall muscle fibers.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Plots of infinite-frequency (instantaneous) muscle fiber stiffness () vs. muscle fiber force (F). Regression from fit to data obtained in isolated muscle (solid line) and 95% tolerance limits on the observations around the regression line (dashed lines) are shown. Data points were derived by geometric transformation of model-derived LV infinite-frequency elastance and measured mean pressure during a heart beat.

The estimates of kinetic parameters b and c obtained in these beating-heart studies, which do not change with geometric transformation, are also in good agreement with findings from isolated muscle studies. Representative values for b and c obtained in rat skinned cardiac muscle fibers at 20°C were 4.2 and 31.9 s^–1, respectively (data taken from results reported in Ref. 9). For the rat hearts of these studies, average estimates of b and c were 6.1 and 54.1 s^–1, respectively, at 25°C and were 14.3 and 139.9 s^–1, respectively, at 37°C. These values, obtained at different temperatures in beating heart and in constantly activated isolated muscle fibers, were considered together in an Arrhenius plot. The individual plots for b and c (Fig. 9) demonstrate that estimates from beating heart and constantly activated isolated muscle fall along one line for each kinetic constant. The calculated Q₁₀ values from these Arrhenius lines were 2.02 for b and 2.21 for c. These Q₁₀ values are characteristic of myofilament kinetic behaviors. Thus we conclude that isolated beating heart can be used with our dynamic LV model to estimate parameters of the same underlying myofilament kinetic processes as could be evaluated using constantly activated isolated muscle.

View larger version (9K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Arrhenius plots of logarithm of kinetic constants for both cross-bridge distortion (c) and recruitment (b) vs. 1/temperature (T). Points obtained from muscle fiber at 20°C (*) and from isolated heart at 25 and 37°C () fall on a common line.

Frequency-dependent muscle fiber stiffness [(j)] is widely used for studying cardiac myofilament function and changes in myofilament function induced by myofilament phosphorylation, changes in myofilament protein composition, and actions on the myofilament by various inotropic agents (3, 4, 30, 35, 46, 50, 51, 57, 62, 63, 66). There are several features of (j) to which physiological significance may be attached including the ratio of low-frequency to high-frequency asymptotes; the kinetic constant of the low-frequency process; the kinetic constant of the high-frequency process; and the dip frequency (f_min) or frequency at which (j) becomes minimally valued. Until now, (j) could only be obtained from isolated, constantly activated muscle fiber preparations. There has been no way to obtain related information from measurements taken in beating heart. However, with our demonstration in Figs. 8 and 9 that the dynamic behavior of beating heart, as expressed by the dynamic LV pressure-volume relationship, may be transformed to apply to an equivalent midwall muscle fiber, it is now possible to construct frequency-dependent muscle fiber stiffness from data obtained in beating heart using the dynamic LV model.

To show the equivalence of (j) estimated from beating heart and constantly activated muscle, the magnitude frequency spectrum of (j) for an average half-activated (pCa 5.7) rat cardiac muscle fiber at 20°C obtained in an earlier study is compared with the magnitude frequency spectra of (j) for a representative midwall fiber at 25 and 37°C as calculated from pressure-volume measurements obtained in beating hearts in this study (Fig. 10; to facilitate comparison, all frequency spectra in Fig. 10 have been normalized by ). Note the similarity in shapes of the three frequency spectra with respect to relative values of low- and high-frequency asymptotes and the presence of the well-defined dips. Also, note that increasing temperature shifts the spectrum progressively to the right as one would expect. The f_min for these three spectra are 0.8 Hz at 20°C (obtained from constantly activated muscle fiber), 1.4 Hz at 25°C (obtained from beating heart), and 3.3 Hz at 37°C (obtained from beating heart).

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Frequency spectra of myocardial stiffness magnitude [(j)]. One spectrum (left) was obtained from force-length measurements in isolated, constantly activated cardiac muscle at 20°C. Other two spectra were derived from dynamic LV model applied to pressure and volume measurements taken in isolated beating heart conducted at 25 (middle) and 30°C (right).

For example, we have documented (9) that f_min represents the frequency at which there is a transition in dominance of mechanisms responsible for muscle fiber stiffness (i.e., the F/L ratio); at lower frequencies, the dominant mechanism(s) is the length-dependent process responsible for cross-bridge recruitment, whereas at higher frequencies, the dominant mechanism is that responsible for cross-bridge distortion. This transition frequency, f_min, which identifies the frequency of minimum muscle fiber stiffness, has been interpreted by others to define the heart rate that leads to optimal cardiac function (45, 57, 62, 63). Based on our finding that f_min is 3.3 Hz at 37°C, our data suggest that the heart rate of optimal function for rats at physiological temperature would be 200 min^–1. Because the normal resting heart rate in rats of the kind used in this study is on the order of 350 min^–1, our finding of an optimal myofilament heart rate of 200 min^–1 means that myofilament mechanisms alone are not dictating resting heart rates.

One can now hypothesize, for example, either that Ca²⁺-handling mechanisms such as those responsible for force-frequency and mechanical restitution also dictate the optimal frequency, or that the resting heart rate is not optimal with respect to any of these underlying cellular mechanisms. By directly linking cardiac muscle function with whole heart function, our myofilament-based LV dynamic model provides the tool needed to formulate and test hypotheses about matching of heart rate to underlying myofilament kinetic mechanism in intact beating heart. This and other related questions about matching and tuning of myofilament mechanisms to cardiovascular system function could not previously be addressed in a manner that lent themselves to experimental testing at the level of intact heart. With the results of this study, however, it is now possible to formulate hypotheses and perform, in intact beating heart rather than in constantly activated (nonbeating) isolated muscle, the direct experimental tests of hypotheses that require integrating dynamic muscle function with whole heart function.

In conclusion, to summarize this study, a new dynamic model of LV pressure-volume relationships in beating heart was developed by linking chamber pressure-volume dynamics with cardiac muscle force-length dynamics and using the assumptions of simple spherical geometry and essential homogenous distribution of wall material and physiological properties.

The dynamic LV model accounted for >80% of the measured variation in pressure caused by small-amplitude volume perturbation in the otherwise isovolumically beating heart. The widely used E(t)-R model, which does not possess dynamic features, could account for only 37% of the pressure variation. Thus the importance of dynamic features in the LV model was underscored.

Although able to generate good fits to pressure responses to volume perturbations, there existed some systematic features in the residual errors of the fit with the dynamic LV model. The issue arose as to whether these residual errors would be damaging to an application of the model wherein myocardial contractile parameters were estimated.

Good agreement was found between magnitude-scaling myocardial parameters derived by geometric transformation of parameters of the dynamic LV model estimated in beating heart and those found by direct measurement in constantly activated isolated muscle fibers. Good agreement was also found between temperature-sensitive kinetic parameters estimated in the two preparations. Thus the small systematic residual errors from fitting the LV model to dynamic pressure-volume measurements do not interfere with the use of the model to estimate contractile parameters in myocardium.

Dynamic contractile behavior of cardiac muscle can now be obtained from beating heart by judicious application of the dynamic LV model to information-rich pressure and volume signals. This provides, for the first time, a bridge between cardiac muscle function and heart function and allows beating heart to be used in studies where the relevance of myofilament contractile behavior to cardiovascular system function may be investigated.

	APPENDIX A

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
Relationship Between Pressure and Volume in Beating Heart is Given in Terms of Dynamic Operations

LV pressure [P(t)] depends at least on both the volume changes [V(t)] that occur during a contraction event and the pressure that would have developed [P_iso(t)] had no volume change occurred. In general, P(t) dependence on V(t) and P_iso(t) involves history (memory) of the system. To include history effects, we write the dependence in terms of the dynamic operator H{}, i.e.

(A1)

Equation A1 may be read as follows: P(t), as the output of a dynamic system, is the result of the mathematical operation H{} on two inputs to the system, V(t) and P_iso(t).

The dynamic operator H{} is not an algebraic function, which we represent as F(), but it is similar to F() in that both H{} and F() map system inputs to an output. However, H{} and F() are dissimilar in that F() maps instantaneous values of the input to the output, whereas H{} maps an entire input function into an output function.

For instance, consider the relationship between electrical current [i(t)] and voltage [v(t)] in two systems, one consisting of a single electrical resistor (R) and the other of a parallel combination of an R and an electrical capacitor (C). In the case of the system of a single R, the input-output relation between v(t) and i(t) may be written in terms of the well-known functional relationship of Ohm's law

(A2)

Here, instantaneous values of i(t) are mapped onto instantaneous values of v(t) by the function R(). Time variation in the output, v(t), depends only on time variation in the input, i(t), and nothing about the system contributes to this time-variation. However, in the case of the parallel R-C circuit, the input-output relation between v(t) and i(t) must be written with differential equations either in the familiar form

(A3)

or in an alternative form where we let D = d/dt and rewrite the relationship of Eq. A3 as

(A4)

The term in square brackets on the right side of Eq. A4 behaves as a dynamic operator in the sense in which we used it above, i.e., it maps the complete function i(t) onto v(t). In general, at any instant, the output of the dynamic system represented by the dynamic operator H{} depends not only on the present value of the input but on the complete time history of the system.

History effects enter the general relationship of Eq. A1 and the specific relationship of Eq. A4 because the relevant dynamic operator in each equation contains the time-derivative operator

as one of its primitive operator components. Other primitive operator components include scalars, summers, and multipliers. We constrain this analysis to situations in which the presence of primitive operators in H{}, including D, allows Eq. 1A to be manipulated as if it were an algebraic equation.

Taylor Series Expansion Allows Dividing of Response Into Components and Then Grouping of Response Components Into Three Categories

We proceed using an incremental analysis by writing the input variables as time-dependent variations around mean values. Because V(t) represents change in volume only and does not include the baseline volume (V_BL), it is already in an incremental form. V_BL enters the relationship through the Frank-Starling mechanism wherein P_iso(t) depends on V_BL. Thus the effect of V_BL on P(t) is implicit in the functional dependence of P(t) on P_iso(t). By separating the LV volume into V_BL and V(t) as we have done, P_iso(t) and V(t) in Eq. A1 are truly independent variables, which facilitates further mathematical decomposition.

An incremental form of P_iso(t) is obtained by taking it to be a beat-period mean value () plus variation [P_iso(t)] around this mean, i.e.

Similarly, the incremental form of V(t) is written as variation around zero mean

because the reference level of V(t) is zero.

With freedom to treat H{} algebraically and a representation of the two input variables, P_iso(t) and V(t), in incremental form (i.e., variation around reference levels), it becomes possible to perform a Taylor series expansion of Eq. A1 around the reference level (, 0)

(A5)

where

(A5a)

(A5b)

(A5c)

Note that all partial derivatives in Eqs. A5a–A5c are evaluated at the reference values (, 0). Time variation is implicit in all terms on the right-hand side.

Consider now the isovolumic condition where V = 0. Here, all V terms in Eq. A5 including the interaction terms drop out, and pressure variation takes place as a result of P_iso(t) alone. Under these isovolumic conditions

(A6)

Thus all the P_iso terms in Eq. A5 may be collected into P_iso(t) and the equation rewritten as

(A7)

We group the terms in Eq. A7 into the following categories:

(A8)

where P(t) minus P_iso(t) = P(t) represents the pressure response to a V(t) administered during a heartbeat

represents the component of the pressure response P_E(t) due to linear V effects as they would occur if pressure were constant at

represents the component of the pressure response P_I'(t) due to the first interaction between V and P_iso, which embraces the time-varying features of the left ventricle, and

represents the component of the pressure response P_R(t) due to all remaining terms in the Taylor series including nonlinear features of the left ventricle.

	APPENDIX B

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
Partial Derivative Terms in Taylor Series Act as Dynamic Operators

It is important to recognize that the partial derivatives of H{P_iso, V} in Eq. A8 are, like the parent expression, dynamic operators that operate on the variables V(t) and/or P_iso(t)V(t). Thus

operates on V in a way that includes dynamic effects. A specific mathematical form of this operation is derived in the text as

(B1)

For now, we are concerned with the physical meaning of the operation. Note that

expresses the change in pressure H{P_iso,V} with a change in volume V (and carries the units of mmHg/ml). With these units and the fact that this operator includes dynamic effects, this partial derivative is properly designated as a dynamic elastance. To simplify notation, this may be written as

where E{V} is the symbolic representation for the elastance operation. Thus the component of the pressure response due to linear dynamic elastance may be given in succinct notation as

(B2)

We now look at the interaction term, which we judge to be of prime importance in this problem. Because P_iso(t) and V(t) are independent of one another, the sequence of derivative operations in the interaction term may be performed in any order. Consider the differentiation sequence

(B3)

In as much as [E] is a dynamic operator

is also a dynamic operator where the coefficients in [E], as they are given in Eq. B1, become modified in

according to their variation with respect to P_iso. We designate this new dynamic operator the dynamic interactance

to stress that the pressure from its effect arises from the interaction between isovolumic pressure and volume change.

The interactance operates on a time signal that is the product of P_iso(t) and V(t) and carries units of energy. The component of the pressure response due to the interaction between P_iso(t) and V(t) may be succinctly written as

(B4)

Because P_iso(t)V(t) carries units of energy, I{} carries units of reciprocal volume.

Because I relates to E through differentiation with respect to P_iso(t), we use this to derive a specific formulation for I{}. We assume that of the E parameters, only the scaling coefficients E₀ and E change with P_iso, whereas the recruitment rate constant b and the distortion rate constant c do not. With this assumption, I may be written as

(B5)

where E₀/P_iso is the slope of E₀ dependence on P_iso (let I₀ = E₀/P_iso) and E/P_iso is the slope of E dependence on P_iso (let I = E/P_iso). Substitution yields

(B6)

In the manner of the elastance example, we can now write the dynamic operations of Eq. B6 in differential equation format

(B7)

where (t) is a time function with units of work (mmHg·ml) given by the first-order differential equation

(B8)

and (t) is a time function also with units of work (mmHg·ml) given by

(B9)

The physical units of I₀ and I are reciprocal volume (ml^–1).

The remainder term, because it consists of lumping several terms in the Taylor series together, has few guidelines for representing its operator and the signal upon which it operates. Here, we take an ad hoc approach and express the pressure due to these remainder terms, P_R(t), in a form analogous to that used for expressing pressure due to elastance and interactance, i.e.

(B10)

where it is understood that i{}, like E{} and I{}, is a dynamic operator, and y(t) is an appropriate signal to be defined later.

With this notation, we may now couch the pressure response to a volume perturbation P(t) in terms of its components as

(B11)

A simplified expression for P(t) may be derived from the relations between the elastance and interactance components. Note that

(B12)

thus

(B13)

and

(B14)

Furthermore,

(B15)

Substituting Eq. B15 into Eq. B14

(B16)

Because

then

(B17)

It can be shown that

(B18)

and

(B19)

thus

(B20)

Substituting Eq. B20 into Eq. B16 gives

(B21)

which is an alternative equation for P(t) to that used in the text.

	GRANTS

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 
This work was supported in part by a generous grant from the Washington State Fraternal Order of Eagles, Pasco Erie (to K. B. Campbell); by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grant RO1 HL-61487/62881 (to H. Granzier); and by American Heart Association Grant 0435241N (to Y. Wu).

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors acknowledge the help of Robert Hutchinson in the machining and construction of the experimental device used in these studies.

	FOOTNOTES

 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: K. Campbell, Dept. of Veterinary and Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology, and Physiology, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164-6520 (E-mail: cvselkbc{at}vetmed.wsu.edu)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT Glossary METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GRANTS REFERENCES

 

1. Allen DG and Kentish JC. The cellular basis of the length-tension relation in cardiac muscle. J Mol Cell Cardiol 17: 821–840, 1985.[Web of Science][Medline]
2. Arts T, Hunter WC, Douglas AS, Muijtjens AM, Corsel JW, and Reneman RS. Macroscopic three-dimensional motion patterns of the left ventricle. Adv Exp Med Biol 346: 383–392, 1993.[Medline]
3. Berman MR, Peterson JN, Yue DT, and Hunter WC. Effect of isoproterenol on force transient time course and on stiffness spectra in rabbit papillary muscle in barium contracture. J Mol Cell Cardiol 20: 415–426, 1988.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Blanchard E, Seidman C, Seidman JG, LeWinter M, and Maughan D. Altered crossbridge kinetics in the MHC^403/+ mouse model of familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Circ Res 84: 475–483, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Braunwald E, Sonnenblick EH, and Ross J Jr. Contraction of the normal heart. In: Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, edited by Braunwald E. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1980, p. 413–452.
6. Burkhoff D, de Tombe PP, and Hunter WC. Impact of ejection on the magnitude and time course of ventricular pressure generating capacity. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 265: H899–H909, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Burns JW, Covell JW, and Ross J Jr. Mechanics of isotonic left ventricular contraction. Am J Physiol 224: 725–732, 1973.[Free Full Text]
8. Campbell KB, Campbell LW, Pinto JE, and Burton TD. Contractile-based model interpretation of pressure-volume dynamics in the constantly activated (Ba²⁺) isolated heart. Ann Biomed Eng 22: 550–567, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9. Campbell KB, Chandra M, Kirkpatrick RD, Slinker BK, and Hunter WC. Interpreting cardiac muscle force-length dynamics using a novel functional model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 286: H1535–H1545, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Campbell KB, Kirkpatrick RD, Knowlen GG, and Ringo JA. Late systolic mechanical properties of the left ventricle: deviation from elastance-resistance behavior. Circ Res 66: 218–233, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Campbell KB, Rahimi AR, Bell DL, Kirkpatrick RD, and Ringo JA. Pressure response to quick volume changes in the tetanized, isolated ferret heart. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 257: H38–H46, 1989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Campbell KB, Razumova MV, Kirkpatrick RD, and Slinker BK. Nonlinear myofilament regulatory processes affect frequency-dependent muscle fiber stiffness. Biophys J 81: 2278–2296, 2001.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Campbell KB, Ringo JA, Knowlen GG, Kirkpatrick RD, and Schmidt SL. Validation of optional elastance-resistance left ventricle pump models. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 251: H382–H397, 1986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Campbell KB, Shroff SG, and Kirkpatrick RD. Short time-scale LV systolic dynamics: evidence for a common mechanism in both LV chamber and heart-muscle mechanics. Circ Res 68: 1532–1548, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Campbell KB, Taheri H, Kirkpatrick RD, Burton T, and Hunter WC. Similarities between dynamic elastance of left ventricular chamber and papillary muscle of rabbit heart. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 264: H1926–H1941, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Campbell KB, Taheri H, Kirkpatrick RD, and Slinker BK. Single perturbed beat vs. steady-state beats for assessing systolic function in the isolated heart. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 262: H1631–H1639, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Campbell KB, Wu Y, Kirkpatrick RD, and Slinker BK. LV pressure response to small-amplitude, sinusoidal volume perturbations in the isolated rabbit heart. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 273: H2044–H2061, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Campbell KB, Wu Y, Kirkpatrick RD, and Slinker BK. Myocardial contractile depression from high-frequency vibration is not due to increased crossbridge breakage. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 274: H1141–H1151, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Crampin EJ, Halstead M, Hunter PJ, Nielsen P, Noble D, Smith N, and Tawhai M. Computational physiology and the physiome project. Exp Physiol 89: 1–26, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. de Tombe PP and Little WC. Inotropic effects of ejection are myocardial properties. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 266: H1202–H1213, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Douglas AS, Rodriguez EK, O'Dell W, and Hunter WC. Unique strain history during ejection in canine left ventricle. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 260: H1596–H1611, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Elzinga G and Westerhof N. "Pressure-volume" relations in isolated cat trabecula. Circ Res 49: 388–394, 1981.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Frank O. Zur Dynamik des Herzmuskels. Z Biol 32: 370–447, 1895. Trans. from German by Chapman CB and Wasserman E: On the dynamics of cardiac muscle. Am Heart J 58: 282–317, 467–477, 1959.
24. Guccione JM, O'Dell WG, McCulloch AD, and Hunter WC. Anterior and posterior left ventricular sarcomere lengths behave similarly during ejection. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 272: H469–H477, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Hunter PJ, McCulloch AD, and ter Keurs HE. Modelling the mechanical properties of cardiac muscle. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 69: 289–331, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Hunter PJ, Pullan AJ, and Smaill BH. Modeling total heart function. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 5: 147–177, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27. Hunter WC. End-systolic pressure as a balance between opposing effects of ejection. Circ Res 64: 265–275, 1989.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Hunter WC, Janicki JS, Weber KT, and Noordergraaf A. Flow-pulse response: a new method for the characterization of ventricular mechanics. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 237: H282–H292, 1979.[Free Full Text]
29. Hunter WC, Janicki JS, Weber KT, and Noordergraaf A. Systolic mechanical properties of the left ventricle: effects of volume and contractile state. Circ Res 52: 319–327, 1983.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Kawai M, Saeki Y, and Zhao Y. Crossbridge scheme and the kinetic constants of elementary steps deduced from chemically skinned papillary and trabecular muscles of the ferret. Circ Res 73: 35–50, 1993.[Abstract]
31. Landsberg A. End-systolic pressure-volume relationship and intracellular control of contraction. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 270: H338–H349, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Little WC and Freeman GL. Description of LV pressure-volume relations by time-varying elastance and source resistance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 253: H83–H90, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Mazhari R and McCulloch AD. Integrative models for understanding the structural basis of regional mechanical dysfunction in ischemic myocardium. Ann Biomed Eng 28: 979–990, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
34. McCulloch A, Bassingthwaighte J, Hunter P, and Noble D. Computational biology of the heart: from structure to function. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 69: 153–155, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
35. Mulieri LA, Barnes W, Leavitt BJ, Ittleman FP, LeWinter MM, Alpert NR, and Maughan DW. Alterations of myocardial dynamic stiffness implicating abnormal crossbridge function in human mitral regurgitation heart failure. Circ Res 90: 66–72, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Negroni JA, Lascano EC, Barra JG, Crottogini AJ, and Pichel PH. The contractile mechanism as an approach to building left ventricular pump models. Cardiovasc Res 27: 1449–1461, 1993.[Free Full Text]
37. Noble D. Modeling the heart. Physiology 19: 191–197, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Noble MIM and Else W. Reexamination of the applicability of the Hill model of muscle to cat myocardium. Circ Res 31: 580–589, 1972.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Paulus WJ, Claes VA, and Brutsaert DL. Physiological loading of isolated feline cardiac muscle. Circ Res 44: 491–497, 1979.[Free Full Text]
40. Pollack GH, Huntsman LL, and Verdugo P. Cardiac muscle models; an overextension of series elasticity? Circ Res 31: 569–579, 1972.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41. Pollack GH. Maximum velocity as an index of contractility in cardiac muscle. A critical evaluation. Circ Res 26: 111–127, 1970.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Razumova MV, Bukatina AE, and Campbell KB. Stiffness-distortion sarcomere model for muscle simulation. J Appl Physiol 87: 1861–1876, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Rodriguez EK, Hunter WC, Royce MJ, Leppo MK, Douglas AS, and Weisman HF. A method to reconstruct myocardial sarcomere lengths and orientations at transmural sites in beating canine hearts. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 263: H293–H306, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Ross J Jr. The assessment of myocardial performance in man by hemodynamic and cineangiographic technics. Am J Cardiol 23: 511–515, 1969.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
45. Ruf T, Schulte-Baukloh H, Ludemann J, Posival H, Beyersdorf F, Just H, and Holubarsch C. Alterations of cross-bridge kinetics in human atrial and ventricular myocardium. Cardiovasc Res 40: 580–590, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
46. Saeki Y, Kawai M, and Zhao Y. Comparison of crossbridge dynamics between intact and skinned myocardium from ferret right ventricles. Circ Res 68: 772–781, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Sagawa K, Maughan L, Suga H, and Sunagawa K. Cardiac Contraction and the Pressure-Volume Relationship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988.
48. Sagawa K. A fundamental similarity between isolated muscle mechanics and cardiac chamber dynamics. In: Cardiac Dynamics, edited by Baan J, Arntzenius AC, and Yellin EL. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1980, p. 81–94.
49. Schiereck P and Boom HBK. Left ventricular active stiffness: dependency on time and inotropic state. Pflügers Arch 374: 135–143, 1978.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
50. Shibata T, Hunter WC, and Sagawa K. Dynamic stiffness of barium-contractured cardiac muscles with different speeds of contraction. Circ Res 60: 770–779, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Shibata T, Hunter WC, Yang A, and Sagawa K. Dynamic stiffness measured in central segment of excised rabbit papillary muscles during barium contracture. Circ Res 60: 756–769, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Shroff SG, Campbell KB, and Kirkpatrick RD. Short time-scale LV systolic dynamics: pressure vs. flow clamps and effects of activation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 264: H946–H959, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Shroff SG, Janicki JS, and Weber KT. Evidence and quantitation of left ventricular systolic resistance. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 249: H358–H370, 1985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Shroff SG, Janicki JS, and Weber KT. Left ventricular systolic dynamics in terms of its chamber mechanical properties. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 245: H110–H124, 1983.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
55. Sonnenblick EH. Implications of muscle mechanics in the heart. Fed Proc 21: 975–990, 1962.[Web of Science][Medline]
56. Sonnenblick EH, Parmley WW, and Urshel CW. The contractile state of the heart as expressed by force-velocity relations. Am J Cardiol 23: 488–503, 1969.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
57. Steiger GJ. Stretch activation and myogenic oscillation of isolated contractile structures of heart muscle. Pflügers Arch 330: 347–361, 1971.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
58. Suga H and Sagawa K. Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supported canine left ventricle. Circ Res 35: 117–126, 1974.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
59. Suga H and Sagawa K. Mathematical interrelationship between instantaneous ventricular pressure-volume ratio and myocardial force-velocity relation. Ann Biomed Eng 1: 160–181, 1972.[Web of Science][Medline]
60. Suga H, Sagawa K, and Demer L. Determinants of instantaneous pressure in canine left ventricle. Time and volume specification. Circ Res 46: 256–263, 1980.[Free Full Text]
61. Suga H, Sagawa K, and Shoukas AA. Load independence of the instantaneous pressure-volume ratio of the canine left ventricle and effects of epinephrine and heart rate on the ratio. Circ Res 32: 314–322, 1973.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Vemuri R, Lankford EB, Poetter K, Hassanzadeh S, Takeda K, Yu ZX, Ferrans VJ, and Epstein ND. The stretch-activation response may be critical to the proper functioning of the mammalian heart. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 1048–1053, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
63. Wannenburg T, Heijne GH, Geerdink JH, Van den Dool HW, Janssen PML, and De Tombe PP. Cross-bridge kinetics in rat myocardium: effect of sarcomere length and calcium activation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 279: H779–H790, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Wijkstra H and Boom HBK. Left-ventricular dynamic model based on constant ejection flow. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 38: 1204–1212, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
65. Wong AYK. A concentric layer model for estimating the energy expenditure of the left ventricle. Bull Math Biophys 32: 581–598, 1970.[CrossRef][Medline]
66. Zhao Y and Kawai M. Inotropic agent EMD-53998 weakens nucleotide and phosphate binding to cross bridges in porcine myocardium. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 271: H1394–H1406, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. B. Campbell, A. M. Simpson, S. G. Campbell, H. L. Granzier, and B. K. Slinker Dynamic left ventricular elastance: a model for integrating cardiac muscle contraction into ventricular pressure-volume relationships J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2008; 104(4): 958 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, K. B. Articles by Slinker, B. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Campbell, K. B. Articles by Slinker, B. K.