BACKGROUND: While cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) assessment is generally regarded as an optimal means to assess functional capacity in heart failure (HF) patients, strength parameters are omitted. CPX indices collected in recovery may provide additional insight regarding function, including strength. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional controlled study. Systolic HF patients (aged ≥ 50 years) and age-matched controls were assessed using CPX and strength evaluations. Standard CPX indices were assessed during exercise (peak oxygen consumption [VO2], first ventilatory threshold [1stVT], and ventilatory efficiency [VE/VCO2 slope]) as well as indices at 1-minute recovery (1 min VO2, 1 min VE/VCO2, and 1 min heart rate recovery [HRR]) and differences between peak and 1-minute recovery (ΔVO₂ and ΔVE/VCO₂). Lower extremity strength was evaluated using the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and power. RESULTS: Seventy adults (31 HF; 39 controls), mean age 66.2 ± 9.7 years were evaluated. Peak VO2 (15.4 ± 4.2 versus 23.4 ± 6.6 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) and 1stVT (10.9 ± 2.1 versus 14.4 ± 4.0 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) were diminished in HF versus controls and VE/VCO2 slope was increased (42.3 ± 12.2 versus 35.4 ± 8.3, p < 0.01). HF patients had reduced 1 minVO₂ (13.1 ± 2.9 versus 16.3 ± 3.7 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001), 1 min HRR (6.7 ± 11.4 versus 12.4 ± 7.6 beats, p < 0.02), and ΔVO₂ (2.43 ± 2.3 versus 7.3 ± 5.0 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) as well as increased 1 min VE/VCO2 (37 ± 7.5 versus 31.5 ± 4.4, p < 0.001) and ΔVE/VCO₂ (1.17 ± 3.0 versus -0.5 ± 1.3, p < 0.0001). Strength parameters were relatively lower in HF. While CPX exercise parameters correlated with strength, stronger correlations were observed between CPX recovery parameters and strength. CONCLUSIONS: CPX recovery indices corroborate disease-specific aerobic differences and distinguish differences in strength. Recovery ventilatory efficiency enhances CPX's value as a comprehensive physical function tool.
BACKGROUND: While cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) assessment is generally regarded as an optimal means to assess functional capacity in heart failure (HF) patients, strength parameters are omitted. CPX indices collected in recovery may provide additional insight regarding function, including strength. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional controlled study. Systolic HFpatients (aged ≥ 50 years) and age-matched controls were assessed using CPX and strength evaluations. Standard CPX indices were assessed during exercise (peak oxygen consumption [VO2], first ventilatory threshold [1stVT], and ventilatory efficiency [VE/VCO2 slope]) as well as indices at 1-minute recovery (1 min VO2, 1 min VE/VCO2, and 1 min heart rate recovery [HRR]) and differences between peak and 1-minute recovery (ΔVO₂ and ΔVE/VCO₂). Lower extremity strength was evaluated using the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and power. RESULTS: Seventy adults (31 HF; 39 controls), mean age 66.2 ± 9.7 years were evaluated. Peak VO2 (15.4 ± 4.2 versus 23.4 ± 6.6 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) and 1stVT (10.9 ± 2.1 versus 14.4 ± 4.0 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) were diminished in HF versus controls and VE/VCO2 slope was increased (42.3 ± 12.2 versus 35.4 ± 8.3, p < 0.01). HF patients had reduced 1 minVO₂ (13.1 ± 2.9 versus 16.3 ± 3.7 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001), 1 min HRR (6.7 ± 11.4 versus 12.4 ± 7.6 beats, p < 0.02), and ΔVO₂ (2.43 ± 2.3 versus 7.3 ± 5.0 mlO₂·kg(-1)·min(-1), p < 0.0001) as well as increased 1 min VE/VCO2 (37 ± 7.5 versus 31.5 ± 4.4, p < 0.001) and ΔVE/VCO₂ (1.17 ± 3.0 versus -0.5 ± 1.3, p < 0.0001). Strength parameters were relatively lower in HF. While CPX exercise parameters correlated with strength, stronger correlations were observed between CPX recovery parameters and strength. CONCLUSIONS: CPX recovery indices corroborate disease-specific aerobic differences and distinguish differences in strength. Recovery ventilatory efficiency enhances CPX's value as a comprehensive physical function tool.
Authors: Hareld M C Kemps; Wouter R De Vries; Adwin R Hoogeveen; Maria L Zonderland; Eric J M Thijssen; Goof Schep Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2007-02-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Ross Arena; Jonathan Myers; Joshua Abella; Mary Ann Peberdy; Daniel Bensimhon; Paul Chase; Marco Guazzi Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-09-20 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: S Nanas; J Nanas; C Kassiotis; C Nikolaou; E Tsagalou; D Sakellariou; I Terovitis; O Papazachou; S Drakos; A Papamichalopoulos; C Roussos Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Charalampos D Kriatselis; Sotirios Nedios; Sebastian Kelle; Sebastian Helbig; Martin Gottwik; Christian von Bary Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 1.866