STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the oxygen pulse curve (O(2)P-C) as measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) rest-exercise response as measured by multigated equilibrium (99m)Tc radionuclide cineangiography (MUGA) in patients with different degrees of ischemic heart disease (IHD). PATIENTS: Forty-six patients (39 men and 7 women; mean plus minus 1 SD age, 59.2 plus minus 11 years) with IHD, with no hypertrophic, valvular, or pericardial disease. METHODS: A supine bicycle ergometer with increments of 25 W every 2 min was used for MUGA, and an electronically braked cycle ergometer was used for upright symptoms-limited CPET. Exercise was increased by 10 to 20 W/min until the target heart rate (HR) was reached (similar peak HR for both studies). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The O(2)P-C was scored on a 10-point scale as follows: type A, normal curve (10 points); type B, normal-shaped curve with low values (8 points); type C, low and flat curve (5 points); type D, descending curve (3 points). Findings for the MUGA study were classified into four groups by the degree of ischemic response: group 1 (control), normal diastolic function (n = 10), LVEF > 55%, LVEF during exercise minus LVEF at rest [DeltaLVEF] greater-than-or-equal 5%; group 2, mild ischemia (n = 10), LVEF > 55%, < 0 DeltaLVEF < 5%, diastolic dysfunction at exercise (prominent "A" waves); group 3, LV dysfunction (n = 9), LVEF < or = 35% at rest; and group 4, significant ischemia (n = 17), LVEF > 55%, DeltaLVEF < 0, diastolic dysfunction. A highly significant relationship between the O(2)P-C score and the MUGA grouping was observed by Fisher's Exact Test and Pearson's linear regression line (p < 0.001; R = - 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-responded O(2)P-C might serve as a good noninvasive, physiologically based, parameter to distinguish between IHD patients with normal and impaired LV function.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the oxygen pulse curve (O(2)P-C) as measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) rest-exercise response as measured by multigated equilibrium (99m)Tc radionuclide cineangiography (MUGA) in patients with different degrees of ischemic heart disease (IHD). PATIENTS: Forty-six patients (39 men and 7 women; mean plus minus 1 SD age, 59.2 plus minus 11 years) with IHD, with no hypertrophic, valvular, or pericardial disease. METHODS: A supine bicycle ergometer with increments of 25 W every 2 min was used for MUGA, and an electronically braked cycle ergometer was used for upright symptoms-limited CPET. Exercise was increased by 10 to 20 W/min until the target heart rate (HR) was reached (similar peak HR for both studies). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The O(2)P-C was scored on a 10-point scale as follows: type A, normal curve (10 points); type B, normal-shaped curve with low values (8 points); type C, low and flat curve (5 points); type D, descending curve (3 points). Findings for the MUGA study were classified into four groups by the degree of ischemic response: group 1 (control), normal diastolic function (n = 10), LVEF > 55%, LVEF during exercise minus LVEF at rest [DeltaLVEF] greater-than-or-equal 5%; group 2, mild ischemia (n = 10), LVEF > 55%, < 0 DeltaLVEF < 5%, diastolic dysfunction at exercise (prominent "A" waves); group 3, LV dysfunction (n = 9), LVEF < or = 35% at rest; and group 4, significant ischemia (n = 17), LVEF > 55%, DeltaLVEF < 0, diastolic dysfunction. A highly significant relationship between the O(2)P-C score and the MUGA grouping was observed by Fisher's Exact Test and Pearson's linear regression line (p < 0.001; R = - 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-responded O(2)P-C might serve as a good noninvasive, physiologically based, parameter to distinguish between IHD patients with normal and impaired LV function.
Authors: Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat; Jörg Honold; Denise Lochmann; Sebastian Wolter; Christoph Liebetrau; Stephan Fichtlscherer; Helge Möllmann; Ioakim Spyridopoulos; Christian W Hamm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Andrea De Lorenzo; Carlito Lessa da Silva; Fernando Cesar Castro Souza; Salvador Serra; Pablo Marino; Ronaldo Sl Lima Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Raphael Rodrigues Perim; Gabriel Ruiz Signorelli; Jonathan Myers; Ross Arena; Claudio Gil Soares de Araújo Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Artur Haddad Herdy; Luiz Eduardo Fonteles Ritt; Ricardo Stein; Claudio Gil Soares de Araújo; Mauricio Milani; Romeu Sérgio Meneghelo; Almir Sérgio Ferraz; Carlos Hossri; Antonio Eduardo Monteiro de Almeida; Miguel Morita Fernandes-Silva; Salvador Manoel Serra Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Bradley J Petek; Timothy W Churchill; J Sawalla Guseh; Garrett Loomer; Sarah K Gustus; Gregory D Lewis; Rory B Weiner; Aaron L Baggish; Meagan M Wasfy Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2021-11
Authors: Justin M Canada; Elisabeth Weiss; John D Grizzard; Cory R Trankle; Leila Rezai Gharai; Franklin Dana; Leo F Buckley; Salvatore Carbone; Dinesh Kadariya; Anthony Ricco; Jennifer H Jordan; Ronald K Evans; Ryan S Garten; Benjamin W Van Tassell; W Gregory Hundley; Antonio Abbate Journal: Cardiooncology Date: 2022-01-18