Ejection fraction?

[Harrybaby666]

Hi Medtronic

Hi Medtronic

Hi There Med,

I have both systolic and diastolic heart failure with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy as the contributing problem along with bum valves, and at my last stress test (1 year ago) My EF was down to 46 which I have been told is not bad, but tell that to the symptoms...That has been my lowest EF to this point, but let me tell you, I have had some really low blood pressures, (80/40) so I question whether my EF has been lower than that. Take Care, Harrybaby666

 

[Lisa in Katy]

My EF was very high prior to surgery (can't remember exact number, but I think over 85%). I think I was told that it was because the chamber pushed out a very large amount of blood to compensate for the large amount of blood returning to the chamber after the beat. My valve was practically a revolving door. It's been a long time, so this may not be exactly right, but I think that's what I remember.

 

[tobagotwo]

That would make sense. The "normal" range is 55%-75%. A high ejection fraction is indicative of a problem as much as a low one. I didn't realize that until I went searching for information about it for an earlier post in this thread.

I had thought higher was better. Now I understand that even a high "normal" EF is not a good sign, if it's accompanied by other known heart problems. It's kind of a relational sliding scale. Can't anything be simple?

The high ejection fraction, unchecked, becomes a part of an itch-scratch-itch cycle that produces further hypertrophy and a myopathy that leads to heart failure. Fortunately for most of us, when a leaky valve is the cause, its replacement generally reverses or at least stabilizes that cycle.

Best wishes,

 

[Abbanabba]

Has anyone got any ideas about patch regurgitation figures? I know my pulmonary EF is somewhere between 40-50%, but I've also got patch regurgitation of 38% (..this was put in to repair the hole when I was 5 and I think it's about 3.2 cm..).

A : )

 

[Marguerite53]

hmmm.

hmmm.

I somehow thought that the ejection fraction was a determined by the ratio of the peak gradient and mean gradient measurements. Perhaps that is what you have actually been talking about, though?? They graph a predetermined stretch of the thrust of the blood as it exits (?) the aortic valve . They average those bursts (the mean?) and then compare that to the one which bursts out the most. This was just an assumption of mine.....

My tech, when I asked about the EF showed me my peak gradient and went on abit about it, but I was so mesmerized by the image on the screen that I only really heard him when he took the curser to a point mid-peak on my "blood-gush" from the aortic valve and said, "well, as a comparison, that's where a normal heart would peak". Mine was gushing way past it and had only another third of the way to be off screen so to speak. He likened it to an increased pressure similar to what one experiences with a garden hose with no nozzle and you place a finger over the end of the hose to increase the pressure of the water coming out.

Sure do wish we had an actual tech out there to educate us more perfectly!! I mentioned this website to my tech, but I couldn't tell if he had any interest. Maybe someday!!

Marguerite

 

[tobagotwo]

I'm not a tech, but logically I suspect the key measurements to be the chamber size (volume), the valve opening size, the mean pressure gradient, and the duration of the ventricular beat.

This is because you would need to know the original volume of liquid, the size of the opening it's flowing through, the pressure of the flow, and the duration of the flow. You would calculate the flow amount, then subtract it from the original chamber volume (capacity). Then show that as a percent of the original chamber volume. Should be your EF.

The peak gradient may help in determining valve opening size, which may be its tie-in with this.

Or not...

Best wishes,