Pressure-Volume Loop — Series: #1–2

1. Introduction

A ventricular pressure–volume (PV) loop integrates the mechanical events of one cardiac cycle into a single pressure–volume diagram. Its horizontal dimension represents ventricular volume, its vertical dimension represents intracavitary pressure, and the enclosed area approximates external stroke work. Unlike ejection fraction (EF), which expresses the fraction of end-diastolic volume ejected, PV analysis provides a framework for distinguishing loading conditions, intrinsic systolic properties, and diastolic chamber behavior [1].

This two-part series addresses the baseline loop, preload and compliance, positive inotropy, depressed contractility, and increased afterload. These perturbations are depicted separately for teaching purposes; they usually coexist in clinical practice. The diagrams principally illustrate left ventricular physiology, but the same concepts can be adapted to the right or single ventricle with appropriate attention to geometry and vascular loading.

2. Reading the Baseline PV Loop

2.1. The four phases

The conventional loop is traversed counterclockwise:

1. Diastolic filling: After the atrioventricular valve opens, ventricular volume increases along the lower boundary of the loop until end-diastolic volume (EDV) is reached.
2. Isovolumetric contraction: Closure of the inlet valve is followed by increasing pressure at approximately constant EDV until ventricular pressure exceeds outflow arterial pressure.
3. Systolic ejection: Opening of the semilunar valve allows volume to decrease from EDV to end-systolic volume (ESV).
4. Isovolumetric relaxation: Following semilunar valve closure, pressure falls at approximately constant ESV until filling begins again [1,3].

Three basic relationships are immediately useful:

Stroke volume (SV) = EDV − ESV

Ejection fraction (EF) = SV / EDV

Cardiac output (CO) = SV × heart rate

The loop's width is stroke volume, whereas its area represents external ventricular stroke work. A larger area can reflect greater pressure generation, greater volume ejection, or both; it does not necessarily indicate better myocardial efficiency. The rectangular appearance is an idealization. Significant valve regurgitation, intracardiac shunts, or continuous-flow circulatory support may diminish or eliminate conventional isovolumetric phases [1,3].

2.2. End-systolic pressure–volume relationship

The end-systolic pressure–volume relationship (ESPVR) connects end-systolic pressure–volume points obtained across different loading conditions. Within its approximately linear operating range:

Pes ≈ Ees × (ESV − V0)

Here, Pes is end-systolic pressure, Ees is end-systolic elastance (the ESPVR slope), and V0 is the extrapolated volume-axis intercept. A steeper ESPVR generally indicates greater chamber systolic elastance; a flatter slope suggests reduced systolic performance. This framework emerged from foundational studies of time-varying ventricular elastance [2].

Ees is more resistant to loading changes than EF or SV, but it is not completely load-independent. Measured values depend on chamber geometry, the loading range, and assumptions about linearity. Moreover, chamber elastance is not identical to intrinsic myocardial contractility: wall thickness and ventricular remodeling also influence the relationship [1,3].

2.3. End-diastolic pressure–volume relationship

The end-diastolic pressure–volume relationship (EDPVR) characterizes the pressure required to accommodate ventricular filling. It is nonlinear: at smaller volumes, substantial filling may occur with little pressure rise, whereas pressure increases rapidly on the steep portion of the curve.

Compliance = ΔV / ΔP; conversely, chamber stiffness = ΔP / ΔV.

A stiff ventricle therefore has reduced compliance and generates higher end-diastolic pressure at a given cavity volume. Its EDPVR is displaced upward and/or leftward. Passive chamber stiffness depends on myocardial extracellular matrix, cardiomyocyte properties, chamber geometry, and extrinsic constraint. Active relaxation is a related but distinct determinant of diastolic filling [5,6].

In a biopsy-based investigation predominantly involving congenital heart disease, Chaturvedi and colleagues found greater passive tissue stiffness in pressure-overloaded than volume-overloaded myocardium, supporting the biological distinction between ventricular pressure loading and volume loading [7].

3. How Preload and Compliance Change the Loop

3.1. Increased preload

Preload describes myocardial loading at the end of diastole, most directly related to end-diastolic fiber stretch or wall stress. EDV is a useful chamber-level surrogate but is not synonymous with preload under all geometric or pericardial conditions.

With contractility, afterload, and compliance initially held constant, increased venous return shifts the end-diastolic operating point rightward along the same EDPVR. EDV rises, and stroke volume typically increases through the Frank–Starling mechanism. End-diastolic pressure may rise modestly on the flatter part of the curve but markedly when filling reaches a steep segment [4].

The key distinction is that increasing preload does not inherently steepen the ESPVR. Greater output can arise from more favorable filling without a change in intrinsic contractile state. In a volume-overloaded or decompensated ventricle, additional filling may produce little increase in forward output while substantially increasing atrial and venous pressures.

3.2. Decreased compliance

Reduced compliance is different from increased preload. Here the EDPVR itself becomes steeper or moves upward/leftward, so the same EDV requires a higher filling pressure. If atrial filling pressure cannot rise sufficiently, achievable EDV and SV may decrease.

This is particularly relevant in concentric hypertrophy, myocardial edema, fibrosis, restrictive physiology, and postoperative ventricular dysfunction. Elevated ventricular filling pressure may transmit to the pulmonary or systemic venous circulation even when ventricular volume and EF appear relatively normal [5–7].

Importantly, an elevated end-diastolic pressure is not direct proof of increased intrinsic myocardial stiffness. Pericardial constraint, ventricular interdependence, elevated external pressure, and incomplete relaxation can also elevate intracavitary pressure. Interpretation requires the full clinical and hemodynamic context [1,6].

4. Inotropy, Contractility, and Afterload

4.1. Increased inotropy

Inotropy refers to the myocardial contractile state. With positive inotropic stimulation and otherwise comparable loading, the ESPVR typically steepens. The ventricle can generate greater pressure at a given volume or eject to a smaller ESV against a given arterial load. Consequently, stroke volume and EF generally increase.

The teaching diagram shows a leftward displacement of the end-systolic point, widening the loop without requiring increased EDV. Dobutamine and epinephrine are examples of drugs that can increase inotropy, although their vascular and chronotropic actions may simultaneously alter afterload and cardiac output. Thus, an observed increase in SV during treatment cannot automatically be attributed entirely to improved contractility [1–3].

4.2. Depressed contractility

Depressed contractility produces the opposite primary change: the ESPVR becomes flatter. At a comparable EDV and arterial load, ESV increases and SV decreases. Acute myocardial ischemia, postoperative stunning, myocarditis, and cardiomyopathy may produce this pattern.

Secondary compensatory changes can modify the loop. Increased filling pressure may partially preserve stroke volume by recruiting preload, while neurohumoral vasoconstriction increases afterload and can further impair ejection. A measured decrease in EF may therefore reflect intrinsic ventricular dysfunction, increased afterload, or a combination rather than one isolated mechanism [1,3].

4.3. Increased afterload

Afterload is the mechanical load opposing ventricular shortening and ejection. A commonly used lumped descriptor is effective arterial elastance:

Ea ≈ Pes / SV

In the standard linear diagram, increased Ea shifts the end-systolic operating point upward and rightward along an unchanged ESPVR: the ventricle develops greater end-systolic pressure, retains a larger ESV, and ejects a smaller SV. The loop becomes taller and narrower. This is an afterload effect, not necessarily reduced contractility [8,9].

Aortic obstruction, systemic vasoconstriction, and increased arterial loading may all impair ejection. However, Ea should not be equated with systemic vascular resistance alone, nor treated as a complete representation of pulsatile vascular load. Although useful for PV coupling analysis, human physiological studies show that Ea is strongly determined by vascular resistance and heart rate and may be relatively insensitive to certain pulsatile load components [10].

4.4. Distinguishing the perturbations

These directional changes assume the other major determinants are approximately constant. They are mechanistic teaching models, not fixed predictions for every clinical intervention.

5. Ventricular–Arterial Coupling and Energetics

Ventricular performance depends on the interaction between ventricular elastance and the arterial system, usually represented by Ea/Ees. Increasing Ea relative to Ees generally makes ejection less favorable; increasing Ees relative to Ea can improve the capacity to eject against the existing load. Classical experimental work established that matching ventricular and arterial properties influences stroke work and mechanical efficiency [8].

Importantly, the ratio cannot be interpreted without its components. Two patients may have similar Ea/Ees despite markedly different ventricular contractility and arterial load. Coupling also depends on timing of arterial pressure generation, wave reflections, and myocardial energetics—features incompletely represented by a single ratio. A multidisciplinary consensus therefore recommends contextual interpretation rather than reliance on the ratio alone [11].

The area within a PV loop is stroke work. Adding end-systolic potential energy yields the broader pressure–volume area (PVA), a mechanical energetic measure associated with myocardial oxygen consumption. Positive inotropy can increase stroke work but may also increase myocardial oxygen demand; increased loop area is not equivalent to improved metabolic efficiency [1,3].

6. Clinical and Perioperative Applications

6.1. Low cardiac output after cardiac surgery

Postoperative low-output states often combine myocardial stunning, abnormal ventricular compliance, altered vascular tone, and limited filling. PV reasoning helps distinguish these mechanisms even when invasive loop measurement is unavailable.

For example, a patient with low SV and high filling pressure may have depressed contractility, severe diastolic constraint, elevated afterload, or several simultaneous abnormalities. Simply administering more fluid assumes preload responsiveness and may worsen congestion if the ventricle already operates on a steep EDPVR.

Conversely, a patient with high afterload and impaired ejection may benefit physiologically from appropriate afterload reduction, provided perfusion pressure remains adequate. Positive inotropic support can improve systolic ejection but must be considered alongside heart rate, myocardial oxygen demand, vasodilation, arrhythmia risk, and the underlying lesion. These examples express physiological reasoning; treatment decisions require lesion-specific and patient-specific assessment.

6.2. Congenital heart disease

In congenital heart disease, ventricular shape and pressure–volume behavior are often altered by systemic or pulmonary outflow obstruction, valvar regurgitation, intracardiac shunting, and staged single-ventricle palliation. A recent clinical review describes PV analysis as a promising method for examining ventricular performance in these settings, while emphasizing the limited pediatric normative data and the need for more outcome-based validation [12].

Right ventricular physiology is especially sensitive to the pulmonary arterial load. Following tetralogy of Fallot repair, chronic pulmonary regurgitation, altered right ventricular geometry, and residual outflow or pulmonary arterial obstruction may interact. In a small invasive study of 24 patients after tetralogy repair, right ventricular–pulmonary arterial coupling was impaired and responses to dobutamine differed by prior repair strategy. These observational findings should not be treated as universal thresholds for intervention [13].

For the Fontan circulation, raising systemic venous pressure does not guarantee increased ventricular preload: pulmonary vascular resistance, pulmonary flow, and atrial pressure constrain filling. A relatively noncompliant systemic ventricle may require substantial atrial pressure to achieve a modest EDV. Consequently, preserved EF does not exclude clinically important diastolic dysfunction or impaired circulatory reserve [12].

6.3. Interpreting changing EF and filling pressure

PV analysis also explains why EF may fall after correction of chronic volume overload even without new myocardial injury. The effective loading conditions, EDV, and contributions of regurgitant versus forward stroke volume have changed; postoperative EF must therefore be interpreted with the ventricular size and residual lesions.

Similarly, a normal or elevated filling pressure should not be considered proof of adequate effective preload. The pressure–volume relationship, extrinsic cardiac constraint, and ventricular interaction determine how that pressure relates to actual cavity volume and filling reserve.

7. Measurement and Interpretation: Practical Limits

Invasive PV analysis combines high-fidelity ventricular pressure measurement with beat-to-beat volume assessment, often using a conductance catheter. Calibration, parallel conductance, catheter alignment, and signal quality affect the result. Multiple beats during controlled loading alteration are generally needed to establish ESPVR and EDPVR rigorously; a single loop cannot define an entire relationship [1,3].

Single-beat methods, echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging can provide useful estimates or reconstructed loops, but they rely on modeling assumptions and are not interchangeable with direct multibeat measurements. Especially in children, small chamber size, abnormal ventricular geometry, regurgitation, and shunts may complicate calibration and interpretation [12].

The primary value of a PV loop is causal interpretation: identifying whether a change in ventricular performance reflects altered filling, chamber stiffness, systolic elastance, or arterial load. Its clinical utility is greatest when integrated with imaging, pressure measurements, forward flow, and the anatomical diagnosis.

Key Clinical Principles

• Loop width is stroke volume; loop area is stroke work. Neither alone measures intrinsic contractility.
• Preload moves the filling point along the EDPVR; reduced compliance changes the EDPVR itself.
• Inotropy principally changes ESPVR; afterload changes the end-systolic operating point.
• Elevated filling pressure does not automatically mean adequate volume or preload responsiveness.
• Ea is a useful simplified arterial-load index, not a complete description of arterial impedance.
• EF and Ea/Ees require interpretation alongside ventricular geometry, loading conditions, and the underlying lesion.

References

1. Burkhoff D, Mirsky I, Suga H. Assessment of systolic and diastolic ventricular properties via pressure-volume analysis: a guide for clinical, translational, and basic researchers. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005;289:H501–H512. DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00138.2005. PMID: 16014610.
2. Suga H, Sagawa K. Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supported canine left ventricle. Circ Res. 1974;35:117–126. DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.35.1.117. PMID: 4841253.
3. Bastos MB, Burkhoff D, Malý J, et al. Invasive left ventricle pressure-volume analysis: overview and practical clinical implications. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:1286–1297. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz552. PMID: 31435675.
4. Moss RL, Fitzsimons DP. Frank-Starling relationship: long on importance, short on mechanism. Circ Res. 2002;90:11–13. DOI: 10.1161/RES.90.1.11. PMID: 11786511.
5. Grossman W, McLaurin LP. Diastolic properties of the left ventricle. Ann Intern Med. 1976;84:316–326. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-84-3-316. PMID: 769626.
6. Zile MR, Baicu CF, Gaasch WH. Diastolic heart failure—abnormalities in active relaxation and passive stiffness of the left ventricle. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1953–1959. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa032566. PMID: 15128895.
7. Chaturvedi RR, Herron T, Simmons R, et al. Passive stiffness of myocardium from congenital heart disease and implications for diastole. Circulation. 2010;121:979–988. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.850677. PMID: 20159832.
8. Sunagawa K, Maughan WL, Sagawa K. Optimal arterial resistance for the maximal stroke work studied in isolated canine left ventricle. Circ Res. 1985;56:586–595. DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.56.4.586. PMID: 3978773.
9. Kelly RP, Ting CT, Yang TM, et al. Effective arterial elastance as index of arterial vascular load in humans. Circulation. 1992;86:513–521. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.86.2.513. PMID: 1638719.
10. Chirinos JA, Rietzschel ER, Shiva-Kumar P, et al. Effective arterial elastance is insensitive to pulsatile arterial load. Hypertension. 2014;64:1022–1031. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03696. PMID: 25069668.
11. Ikonomidis I, Aboyans V, Blacher J, et al. The role of ventricular–arterial coupling in cardiac disease and heart failure: assessment, clinical implications and therapeutic interventions. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:402–424. DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.1436. PMID: 30859669.
12. Hiremath G, Batlivala S, Callahan R, et al. Clinical applications of pressure-volume assessment in congenital heart disease. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;2:100599. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2023.100599. PMID: 39130717.
13. Latus H, Binder W, Kerst G, et al. Right ventricular-pulmonary arterial coupling in patients after repair of tetralogy of Fallot. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146:1366–1372. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.02.039. PMID: 23507126.