BACKGROUND: Peak exercise oxygen uptake (peak VO2) and ventilation to CO2 production (VE/VCO2) slope are established prognostic indicators in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A high VE/VCO2 slope, however, does not take into account the level of physical performance as expressed by peak VO2. We hypothesized that the prognostic value of a high VE/VCO2 slope may be improved by normalization for peak VO2 (VE/VCO2/VO2). METHODS: One hundred patients with CHF underwent pulmonary function tests at rest (spirometry and lung diffusion capacity) and maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The prognostic value of VE/VCO2 slope, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2/VO2 was probed prospectively. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients died from cardiac reasons during a mean follow-up of 26 +/- 19 months. Nonsurvivors, compared to survivors, showed a lower peak VO2 (13.6 +/- 4.0 vs 17.5 +/- 4.1 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1), P <.01) and a steeper VE/VCO2 slope (43 +/- 11 vs 31.6 +/- 5.0, P <.01). Nonetheless, in patients whose VE/VCO2 slope exceeded 34 (upper normal limit), there was no correlation with peak VO2 (r = -35, P = not significant). Interestingly 35% of them showed a normal exercise performance (peak VO2 > or =18 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1)). At multivariate analysis, the VE/VCO2 slope showed a prognostic power stronger than that of peak VO2; however, the VE/VCO2/VO2 index retained a prognostic power greater than that of both VE/VCO2 slope and peak VO2. A VE/VCO2/VO2 > or =2.4 signaled cases at higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between VE/VCO2 slope and peak VO2 may generate uncertainty. Normalization of the former by the latter improves outcome prediction and may be considered a simple and effective way for maximizing the clinical applicability of these 2 indicators.
BACKGROUND: Peak exercise oxygen uptake (peak VO2) and ventilation to CO2 production (VE/VCO2) slope are established prognostic indicators in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). A high VE/VCO2 slope, however, does not take into account the level of physical performance as expressed by peak VO2. We hypothesized that the prognostic value of a high VE/VCO2 slope may be improved by normalization for peak VO2 (VE/VCO2/VO2). METHODS: One hundred patients with CHF underwent pulmonary function tests at rest (spirometry and lung diffusion capacity) and maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The prognostic value of VE/VCO2 slope, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2/VO2 was probed prospectively. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients died from cardiac reasons during a mean follow-up of 26 +/- 19 months. Nonsurvivors, compared to survivors, showed a lower peak VO2 (13.6 +/- 4.0 vs 17.5 +/- 4.1 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1), P <.01) and a steeper VE/VCO2 slope (43 +/- 11 vs 31.6 +/- 5.0, P <.01). Nonetheless, in patients whose VE/VCO2 slope exceeded 34 (upper normal limit), there was no correlation with peak VO2 (r = -35, P = not significant). Interestingly 35% of them showed a normal exercise performance (peak VO2 > or =18 mL x min(-1) x kg(-1)). At multivariate analysis, the VE/VCO2 slope showed a prognostic power stronger than that of peak VO2; however, the VE/VCO2/VO2 index retained a prognostic power greater than that of both VE/VCO2 slope and peak VO2. A VE/VCO2/VO2 > or =2.4 signaled cases at higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies between VE/VCO2 slope and peak VO2 may generate uncertainty. Normalization of the former by the latter improves outcome prediction and may be considered a simple and effective way for maximizing the clinical applicability of these 2 indicators.
Authors: Justin McNair Canada; Antonio Abbate; Rebecca Collen; Hayley Billingsley; Leo Francis Buckley; Salvatore Carbone; Cory Ross Trankle; Michael Ola Idowu; Dinesh Kadariya; Benjamin Van Tassell; Arun Jayant Sanyal; Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Benjamin W Van Tassell; Justin Canada; Salvatore Carbone; Cory Trankle; Leo Buckley; Claudia Oddi Erdle; Nayef A Abouzaki; Dave Dixon; Dinesh Kadariya; Sanah Christopher; Aaron Schatz; Jessica Regan; Michele Viscusi; Marco Del Buono; Ryan Melchior; Pranav Mankad; Juan Lu; Robin Sculthorpe; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Edward Lesnefsky; Ross Arena; Antonio Abbate Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Matthew A Tucker; Nichole Lee; Paula Rodriguez-Miguelez; Jacob Looney; Reva H Crandall; Caralee Forseen; Kathleen T McKie; Ryan A Harris Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ali Shafiq; Clinton A Brawner; Heather A Aldred; Barry Lewis; Celeste T Williams; Christina Tita; John R Schairer; Jonathan K Ehrman; Mauricio Velez; Yelena Selektor; David E Lanfear; Steven J Keteyian Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Daiana C Bündchen; Ana I Gonzáles; Marcos De Noronha; Ana K Brüggemann; Sabrina W Sties; Tales De Carvalho Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Marco Guazzi; Barry Borlaug; Marco Metra; Maurizio Losito; Francesco Bandera; Eleonora Alfonzetti; Sara Boveri; Tadafumi Sugimoto Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-02-20 Impact factor: 5.501