Gherardo Finocchiaro1, Francois Haddad2, Joshua W Knowles2, Colleen Caleshu3, Aleksandra Pavlovic3, Julian Homburger3, Yael Shmargad3, Gianfranco Sinagra4, Emma Magavern3, Myo Wong5, Marco Perez3, Ingela Schnittger2, Jonathan Myers5, Victor Froelicher5, Euan A Ashley6. 1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford, California; St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gherardobis@yahoo.it. 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, California. 3. Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford, California. 4. Cardiovascular Department, Ospedali Riuniti and University of Trieste, Italy. 5. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 6. Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford, California. Electronic address: euan@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to discover the key determinants of exercise capacity, maximal oxygen consumption (oxygen uptake [Vo2]), and ventilatory efficiency (ventilation/carbon dioxide output [VE/Vco2] slope) and assess the prognostic potential of metabolic exercise testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). BACKGROUND: The intrinsic mechanisms leading to reduced functional tolerance in HCM are unclear. METHODS: The study sample included 156 HCM patients consecutively enrolled from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2012 with a complete clinical assessment, including rest and stress echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) with impedance cardiography. Patients were also followed for the composite outcome of cardiac-related death, heart transplant, and functional deterioration leading to septal reduction therapy (myectomy or septal alcohol ablation). RESULTS: Abnormalities in CPET responses were frequent, with 39% (n = 61) of the sample showing a reduced exercise tolerance (Vo2 max <80% of predicted) and 19% (n = 30) characterized by impaired ventilatory efficiency (VE/Vco2 slope >34). The variables most strongly associated with exercise capacity (expressed in metabolic equivalents), were peak cardiac index (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), age (r = -0.25, p < 0.01), male sex (r = 0.24, p = 0.02), and indexed right ventricular end-diastolic area (r = 0.31, p = 0.002), resulting in an R(2) of 0.51, p < 0.001. Peak cardiac index was the main predictor of peak Vo2 (r = 0.61, p < 0.001). The variables most strongly related to VE/VCO2 slope were E/E' (r = 0.23, p = 0.021) and indexed left atrial volume index (LAVI) (r = 0.34, p = 0.005) (model R(2) = 0.15). The composite endpoint occurred in 21 (13%) patients. In an exploratory analysis, 3 variables were independently associated with the composite outcome (mean follow-up 27 ± 11 months): peak Vo2 <80% of predicted (hazard ratio: 4.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46 to 11.59; p = 0.008), VE/Vco2 slope >34 (hazard ratio: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.26 to 7.87; p = 0.014), and LAVI >40 ml/m(2) (hazard ratio: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.08 to 10.16; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: In HCM, peak cardiac index is the main determinant of exercise capacity, but it is not significantly related to ventilatory efficiency. Peak Vo2, ventilatory inefficiency, and LAVI are associated with an increased risk of major events in the short-term follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to discover the key determinants of exercise capacity, maximal oxygen consumption (oxygen uptake [Vo2]), and ventilatory efficiency (ventilation/carbon dioxide output [VE/Vco2] slope) and assess the prognostic potential of metabolic exercise testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). BACKGROUND: The intrinsic mechanisms leading to reduced functional tolerance in HCM are unclear. METHODS: The study sample included 156 HCM patients consecutively enrolled from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2012 with a complete clinical assessment, including rest and stress echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) with impedance cardiography. Patients were also followed for the composite outcome of cardiac-related death, heart transplant, and functional deterioration leading to septal reduction therapy (myectomy or septal alcohol ablation). RESULTS: Abnormalities in CPET responses were frequent, with 39% (n = 61) of the sample showing a reduced exercise tolerance (Vo2 max <80% of predicted) and 19% (n = 30) characterized by impaired ventilatory efficiency (VE/Vco2 slope >34). The variables most strongly associated with exercise capacity (expressed in metabolic equivalents), were peak cardiac index (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), age (r = -0.25, p < 0.01), male sex (r = 0.24, p = 0.02), and indexed right ventricular end-diastolic area (r = 0.31, p = 0.002), resulting in an R(2) of 0.51, p < 0.001. Peak cardiac index was the main predictor of peak Vo2 (r = 0.61, p < 0.001). The variables most strongly related to VE/VCO2 slope were E/E' (r = 0.23, p = 0.021) and indexed left atrial volume index (LAVI) (r = 0.34, p = 0.005) (model R(2) = 0.15). The composite endpoint occurred in 21 (13%) patients. In an exploratory analysis, 3 variables were independently associated with the composite outcome (mean follow-up 27 ± 11 months): peak Vo2 <80% of predicted (hazard ratio: 4.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46 to 11.59; p = 0.008), VE/Vco2 slope >34 (hazard ratio: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.26 to 7.87; p = 0.014), and LAVI >40 ml/m(2) (hazard ratio: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.08 to 10.16; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: In HCM, peak cardiac index is the main determinant of exercise capacity, but it is not significantly related to ventilatory efficiency. Peak Vo2, ventilatory inefficiency, and LAVI are associated with an increased risk of major events in the short-term follow-up.
Authors: Sara Saberi; Matthew Wheeler; Jennifer Bragg-Gresham; Whitney Hornsby; Prachi P Agarwal; Anil Attili; Maryann Concannon; Annika M Dries; Yael Shmargad; Heidi Salisbury; Suwen Kumar; Jonathan J Herrera; Jonathan Myers; Adam S Helms; Euan A Ashley; Sharlene M Day Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert Przybylski; Ilana R Fischer; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Mark E Alexander; Keri M Shafer; Steven D Colan; Christa Miliaresis; Jonathan Rhodes Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Jennifer E Ho; Ling Shi; Sharlene M Day; Steven D Colan; Mark W Russell; Jeffrey A Towbin; Mark V Sherrid; Charles E Canter; John Lynn Jefferies; Anne Murphy; Matthew Taylor; Luisa Mestroni; Allison L Cirino; Lynn A Sleeper; Peter Jarolim; Begoña Lopez; Arantxa Gonzalez; Javier Diez; E John Orav; Carolyn Y Ho Journal: Open Heart Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: Jolanda van der Velden; Carlo G Tocchetti; Gilda Varricchi; Anna Bianco; Vasco Sequeira; Denise Hilfiker-Kleiner; Nazha Hamdani; Adelino F Leite-Moreira; Manuel Mayr; Ines Falcão-Pires; Thomas Thum; Dana K Dawson; Jean-Luc Balligand; Stephane Heymans Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Dirceu Thiago Pessoa de Melo; Flavia Baggio Nerbass; Ana Luiza Carrari Sayegh; Francis Ribeiro de Souza; Viviane Tiemi Hotta; Vera Maria Curi Salemi; Félix José Alvarez Ramires; Ricardo Ribeiro Dias; Geraldo Lorenzi-Filho; Charles Mady; Fábio Fernandes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jeffrey B Geske; Kevin C Ong; Konstantinos C Siontis; Virginia B Hebl; Michael J Ackerman; David O Hodge; Virginia M Miller; Rick A Nishimura; Jae K Oh; Hartzell V Schaff; Bernard J Gersh; Steve R Ommen Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Joshua R Smith; Jose R Medina-Inojosa; Veronica Layrisse; Steve R Ommen; Thomas P Olson Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-11-18 Impact factor: 4.241