Paul J Chase1, Aarti Kenjale2, Lawrence P Cahalin3, Ross Arena4, Paul G Davis5, Jonathan Myers6, Marco Guazzi7, Daniel E Forman8, Euan Ashley9, Mary Ann Peberdy10, Erin West8, Christopher T Kelly11, Daniel R Bensimhon11. 1. LeBauer Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Greensboro, North Carolina; Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina. Electronic address: Paul.Chase@conehealth.com. 2. LeBauer Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Greensboro, North Carolina; Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina. 6. Division of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 7. Cardiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milano, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. 8. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 10. Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 11. LeBauer Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Greensboro, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic characteristics of peak oxygen consumption (Vo2) and the minute ventilation/carbon dioxide (VE/Vco2) slope of different peak respiratory exchange ratios (RERs) obtained from cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: For patients with HF, peak Vo2 and the VE/Vco2 slope are used for assessing prognosis. Peak Vo2 is assessed in association with peak RER ≥1.10, indicating maximal effort and prognostic sensitivity. Conversely, the VE/Vco2 slope provides effort-independent prognostic discrimination. METHODS: Patients with HF scheduled to undergo cardiopulmonary exercise testing were enrolled. Patients were subclassified by peak RER (RER <1.00, RER 1.00 to 1.04, RER 1.05 to 1.09, RER ≥1.10) and followed for up to 3 years for major cardiac-related events (death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or cardiac transplantation). RESULTS: Included were 1,728 patients with HF (75% males; 40% ischemic etiology; age: 55 ± 14 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 28 ± 10%). Two hundred seventy major events occurred, with no proportional differences across the RER subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that the VE/Vco2 slope and peak Vo2 remained prognostic within each subgroup; the VE/Vco2 slope remained the strongest predictor. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated equitable prognostic cutoffs for the VE/Vco2 slope (range: 34.9 to 35.7; area under the curve [AUC] range: 0.69 to 0.75) and peak Vo2 (range: 13.8 to 14.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); AUC range: 0.68 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Peak Vo2 provided a sensitive assessment of prognosis in patients with HF in all RER subgroups. The VE/Vco2 slope provided greater prognostic discrimination in all RER subgroups. Clinical consideration may be warranted for patients with low RER, low peak Vo2, and an elevated VE/Vco2 slope.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic characteristics of peak oxygen consumption (Vo2) and the minute ventilation/carbon dioxide (VE/Vco2) slope of different peak respiratory exchange ratios (RERs) obtained from cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: For patients with HF, peak Vo2 and the VE/Vco2 slope are used for assessing prognosis. Peak Vo2 is assessed in association with peak RER ≥1.10, indicating maximal effort and prognostic sensitivity. Conversely, the VE/Vco2 slope provides effort-independent prognostic discrimination. METHODS:Patients with HF scheduled to undergo cardiopulmonary exercise testing were enrolled. Patients were subclassified by peak RER (RER <1.00, RER 1.00 to 1.04, RER 1.05 to 1.09, RER ≥1.10) and followed for up to 3 years for major cardiac-related events (death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or cardiac transplantation). RESULTS: Included were 1,728 patients with HF (75% males; 40% ischemic etiology; age: 55 ± 14 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 28 ± 10%). Two hundred seventy major events occurred, with no proportional differences across the RER subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that the VE/Vco2 slope and peak Vo2 remained prognostic within each subgroup; the VE/Vco2 slope remained the strongest predictor. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated equitable prognostic cutoffs for the VE/Vco2 slope (range: 34.9 to 35.7; area under the curve [AUC] range: 0.69 to 0.75) and peak Vo2 (range: 13.8 to 14.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1); AUC range: 0.68 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Peak Vo2 provided a sensitive assessment of prognosis in patients with HF in all RER subgroups. The VE/Vco2 slope provided greater prognostic discrimination in all RER subgroups. Clinical consideration may be warranted for patients with low RER, low peak Vo2, and an elevated VE/Vco2 slope.
Authors: Steven J Keteyian; Clinton A Brawner; Jonathan K Ehrman; Russell Ivanhoe; John P Boehmer; William T Abraham Journal: Chest Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ross Arena; Jonathan Myers; Joshua Abella; Sherry Pinkstaff; Peter Brubaker; Dalane Kitzman; Mary Ann Peberdy; Daniel Bensimhon; Paul Chase; Daniel E Forman; Marco Guazzi Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: William T Abraham; Daniel Burkhoff; Koonlawee Nademanee; Peter Carson; Robert Bourge; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Michael Parides; Alan Kadish Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Daniel R Bensimhon; Eric S Leifer; Stephen J Ellis; Jerome L Fleg; Steven J Keteyian; Ileana L Piña; Dalane W Kitzman; Robert S McKelvie; William E Kraus; Daniel E Forman; Andrew J Kao; David J Whellan; Christopher M O'Connor; Stuart D Russell Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 2.778
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: Virginia Mihalick; George Wohlford; Azita H Talasaz; Ai-Chen Jane Ho; Francine Kim; Justin M Canada; Salvatore Carbone; Dinesh Kadariya; Hayley Billingsley; Cory Trankle; Marco Giuseppe Del Buono; Francesco Moroni; Ross Arena; Antonio Abbate; Benjamin Van Tassell Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Wilson Nadruz; Erin West; Morten Sengeløv; Mário Santos; John D Groarke; Daniel E Forman; Brian Claggett; Hicham Skali; Amil M Shah Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Adam Ali Ghotbi; Mikael Sander; Lars Køber; Berit Th Philbert; Finn Gustafsson; Christoffer Hagemann; Andreas Kjær; Peter K Jacobsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240