Joseph Skalski1, Thomas G Allison, Todd D Miller. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases and Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) with measurement of peak oxygen uptake (Vo(2)) is a powerful test for assessment and quantification of functional impairment resulting from cardiovascular disease. The safety of CPX has been established in patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure, but clinical use of CPX in other cardiac diseases has been limited, in part because of a paucity of safety data. This study investigates the safety of CPX in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with a wide variety of underlying high-risk cardiac diagnoses. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-center retrospective review examined 5060 CPX studies performed in 4250 unique patients, including 1748 (35%) female subjects and 686 (14%) subjects aged ≥75 years. The primary end point was major adverse event during stress testing. The study population included patients with a variety of high-risk cardiac diseases, including congestive heart failure (n=1289, 25.5%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=598, 11.8%), pulmonary hypertension (n=194, 3.8%), and aortic stenosis (n=212, 4.2%). This patient population generally had severe functional impairment, including 1192 (24%) patients with peak Vo(2)<14 mL/kg/min. Eight adverse events occurred during CPX, for an adverse event rate of 0.16%. The most common adverse event (n=6) was sustained ventricular tachycardia. There were no fatal events. CONCLUSIONS: CPX is generally a safe procedure, even in a population with underlying high-risk cardiovascular diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) with measurement of peak oxygen uptake (Vo(2)) is a powerful test for assessment and quantification of functional impairment resulting from cardiovascular disease. The safety of CPX has been established in patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure, but clinical use of CPX in other cardiac diseases has been limited, in part because of a paucity of safety data. This study investigates the safety of CPX in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with a wide variety of underlying high-risk cardiac diagnoses. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-center retrospective review examined 5060 CPX studies performed in 4250 unique patients, including 1748 (35%) female subjects and 686 (14%) subjects aged ≥75 years. The primary end point was major adverse event during stress testing. The study population included patients with a variety of high-risk cardiac diseases, including congestive heart failure (n=1289, 25.5%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=598, 11.8%), pulmonary hypertension (n=194, 3.8%), and aortic stenosis (n=212, 4.2%). This patient population generally had severe functional impairment, including 1192 (24%) patients with peak Vo(2)<14 mL/kg/min. Eight adverse events occurred during CPX, for an adverse event rate of 0.16%. The most common adverse event (n=6) was sustained ventricular tachycardia. There were no fatal events. CONCLUSIONS: CPX is generally a safe procedure, even in a population with underlying high-risk cardiovascular diagnoses.
Authors: Aarti A Kenjale; Whitney E Hornsby; Theresa Crowgey; Samantha Thomas; James E Herndon; Michel G Khouri; Amy R Lane; Caroline E Bishop; Neil D Eves; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Pamela S Douglas; Lee W Jones Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-07-24
Authors: C R Kelsey; J M Scott; A Lane; E Schwitzer; M J West; S Thomas; J E Herndon; M G Michalski; M E Horwitz; T Hennig; L W Jones Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Jonathan Myers; Daniel E Forman; Gary J Balady; Barry A Franklin; Jane Nelson-Worel; Billie-Jean Martin; William G Herbert; Marco Guazzi; Ross Arena Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-08-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Reena M Ghosh; Gregory J Gates; Christine A Walsh; Myles S Schiller; Robert H Pass; Scott R Ceresnak Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Matthew Nayor; Ravi V Shah; Melissa Tanguay; Jasmine B Blodgett; Ariel Chernofsky; Patricia E Miller; Vanessa Xanthakis; Rajeev Malhotra; Nicholas E Houstis; Raghava S Velagaleti; Martin G Larson; Ramachandran S Vasan; Gregory D Lewis Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Carolina Borges Garcia; Luciana Parente Costa Seguro; Luiz Augusto Perandini; Ana Lúcia de Sá Pinto; Fernanda Rodrigues Lima; Carlos Eduardo Negrão; Eloisa Bonfa; Eduardo Ferreira Borba Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Matthew Nayor; Nicholas E Houstis; Mayooran Namasivayam; Jennifer Rouvina; Charles Hardin; Ravi V Shah; Jennifer E Ho; Rajeev Malhotra; Gregory D Lewis Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Whitney E Hornsby; Elizabeth L Norton; Samantha Fink; Sara Saberi; Xiaoting Wu; Cheri L McGowan; Robert D Brook; Lee W Jones; Cristen J Willer; Himanshu J Patel; Kim A Eagle; Carl J Lavie; Melvyn Rubenfire; Bo Yang Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.646