Article

The prognostic utility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing stands the test of time in patients with heart failure.

Department of Orthopaedics, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, HSSB Room 204F, MSC09 5230, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention (Impact Factor: 1.68). 07/2012; 32(4):198-202. DOI: 10.1097/HCR.0b013e318259f153
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While the medical management strategy for patients with heart failure (HF) has dramatically changed, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) procedures and the data obtained have remained relatively stable. We are unaware of any previous investigation that has assessed differences in the prognostic utility of CPX in HF according to time period, reflecting differences in the clinical management of systolic HF.
Subjects (n = 381) underwent CPX between April 1, 1993, and December 31, 2005, and the remaining 511 were tested between January 1, 2006, and October 28, 2010. Peak oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)O2) and the minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production ((Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2) slope were ascertained for all tests.
Both the (Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2 slope and peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 were strong univariate predictors of adverse events in both subgroups. In the multivariate analysis, the (Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2 slope was the strongest predictive marker while peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 added predictive value and was retained in the regression for all scenarios. In subjects undergoing CPX before 2006, a (Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2 slope 45 or greater and a peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 of less than 10 mL · kg · min generated a hazard ratio of 4.2 (95% CI: 1.9-9.1, P < .001) when considering only mortality as an endpoint. In subjects undergoing CPX after 2006, a (Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2 slope 45 or greater and a peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 of less than 10 mL · kg · min generated a hazard ratio of 8.2 (95% CI: 4.7-14.3, P < .001) when considering only mortality as an endpoint.
The results of this study indicate that CPX continues to be a valuable clinical assessment in the present-day HF management.

1 Follower
 · 
117 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) slope has been widely demonstrated to have strong prognostic value in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), and the risk of mortality is believed to increase when the VE/VCO2 slope is >32.8; however, there is little evidence concerning the prognostic value of the VE/VCO2 slope in Chinese patients. In the present study, the prognostic value of the VE/VCO2 slope was investigated in patients with CHF. A total of 258 subjects underwent symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and were divided into CHF (113 males and 16 females; LVEF <0.49) and control (106 males and 23 females) groups. The cardiac-related events over a median 33.7-month follow-up period subsequent to the CPET were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The VE/VCO2 slope was significantly different between the CHF and control groups (P<0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for the VE/VCO2 slope in predicting cardiac-related mortalities in the patients with CHF was 0.670 (P<0.05), and the sensitivity and specificity of the VE/VCO2 slope were 0.667 and 0.620, respectively. The optimal threshold of the VE/VCO2 slope for predicting cardiac-related mortalities in patients with CHF was ≥39.3. The AUC for the VE/VCO2 slope in predicting cardiac-related hospitalizations in patients with CHF was 0.682 (P<0.05), and the sensitivity and specificity of the VE/VCO2 slope were 0.631 and 0.778, respectively. The optimal threshold of the VE/VCO2 slope for predicting cardiac-related hospitalizations in patients with CHF was ≥32.9. In conclusion, ventilatory efficiency decreases in patients with CHF. The VE/VCO2 slope is a strong predictor of cardiac-related mortalities in the patients with CHF analyzed.
    Experimental and therapeutic medicine 02/2015; 9(4). DOI:10.3892/etm.2015.2267 · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2) and ventilatory efficiency (V̇E/V̇CO2slope) measured on cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) are prognostic indicators in heart failure (HF) patients, but peak V̇O2is influenced by patient effort. In CPX targeting a peak respiratory exchange ratio (pRER; an objective index of effort adequacy) higher than the commonly recommended level, we assessed the safety and prognostic value of CPX parameters compared with non-CPX parameters.Methods and Results:We studied 283 consecutive HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45% (mean, 26.3%) who underwent CPX targeting pRER >1.20. The attained pRER (mean, 1.26) was consistently high irrespective of LVEF, and there was no major exercise-related adverse event. The composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization occurred in 111 patients (39%) during a median follow-up of 47 months. Among well-known prognostic markers, peak V̇O2was the most powerful predictor of outcome as both a continuous and an optimal dichotomous variable, followed by V̇E/V̇CO2slope. On multivariate analysis, peak V̇O2was a significant independent predictor, whereas V̇E/V̇CO2slope, B-type natriuretic peptide, and LVEF were not.Conclusions:In CPX targeting pRER >1.20 for HF patients, peak V̇O2is the most powerful among well-known predictors, without an increased risk of exercise-related events. These findings advocate a high target pRER in CPX even in advanced HF.
    Circulation Journal 07/2014; 78(9). DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0047 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Anesthesiology 12/2012; 118(1). DOI:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318278c8b6 · 6.17 Impact Factor