Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Aging (Jul 2022)
    • Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicine (Jun 2022)
    • New Therapeutic Targets in Cardiovascular Diseases (Mar 2022)
    • Immunometabolism (Jan 2022)
    • Circadian Rhythm (Oct 2021)
    • Gut-Brain Axis (Jul 2021)
    • Tumor Microenvironment (Mar 2021)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Concise Communication
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • In-Press Preview
  • Commentaries
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact

Usage Information

Left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction
Paul Hamosh, Jay N. Cohn
Paul Hamosh, Jay N. Cohn
Published March 1, 1971
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1971;50(3):523-533. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI106521.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

Left ventricular function in acute myocardial infarction

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Left ventricular catheterization was carried out in 40 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) was elevated in 85% of the patients studied. In 14 patients with apparently uncomplicated infarcts, LVEDP averaged 15 mm Hg, and cardiac index (2.98 liter/min/m2), stroke volume (38.3 ml/m2), and stroke work (49.2 g-m/m2) were within normal limits. In 12 patients with clinical signs of left ventricular failure, LVEDP averaged 29.9 mm Hg, cardiac index was at the lower limit of normal (2.79 liter/min/m2), but stroke volume (31.6 ml/m2) and stroke work (37.3 g-m/m2) were reduced. In 14 patients with clinical signs of shock, LVEDP averaged significantly lower than in the heart failure group (21.1 mm Hg), but cardiac index (1.59 liter/min/m2), stroke volume (16.5 ml/m2), and stroke work (11.1 g-m/m2) were markedly reduced. A large presystolic atrial “kick” (average amplitude 9.5 mm Hg) was an important factor in the high LVEDP in the patients with heart failure but not in those with shock. The first derivative of left ventricular pressure was significantly lower in shock than in the nonshock group. Although right atrial pressure (RAP) and LVEDP were significantly correlated (r = 0.49), wide discrepancies in individual patients rendered the RAP an unreliable indicator of the magnitude of left ventricular filling pressure.

Authors

Paul Hamosh, Jay N. Cohn

×

Usage data is cumulative from August 2021 through August 2022.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 228 0
PDF 32 23
Scanned page 43 31
Citation downloads 8 0
Totals 311 54
Total Views 365
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts