Justin L Grodin1, Wilfried Mullens2, Matthias Dupont2, Yuping Wu3, David O Taylor1, Randall C Starling1, W H Wilson Tang1,4. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium and Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium. 3. Department of Mathematics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department for Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk J3-4, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac pump function is often quantified by left ventricular ejection fraction by various imaging modalities. As the heart is commonly conceptualized as a hydraulic pump, cardiac power describes the hydraulic function of the heart. We aim to describe the prognostic value of resting cardiac power index (CPI) in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated CPI in 495 sequential ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment with longitudinal follow-up of adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement). The median CPI was 0.44 W/m(2) (interquartile range 0.37, 0.52). Over a median of 3.3 years, there were 117 deaths, 104 transplants, and 20 ventricular assist device placements in our cohort. Diminished CPI (<0.44 W/m(2) ) was associated with increased adverse outcomes [hazard ratio (HR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-3.1, P < 0.0001). The prognostic value of CPI remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, cardiac index, pulmonary vascular resistance, left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine [HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3, P = 0.04). Furthermore, CPI can risk stratify independently of peak oxygen consumption (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.4, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Resting cardiac power index provides independent and incremental prediction in adverse outcomes beyond traditional haemodynamic and cardio-renal risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac pump function is often quantified by left ventricular ejection fraction by various imaging modalities. As the heart is commonly conceptualized as a hydraulic pump, cardiac power describes the hydraulic function of the heart. We aim to describe the prognostic value of resting cardiac power index (CPI) in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated CPI in 495 sequential ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment with longitudinal follow-up of adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement). The median CPI was 0.44 W/m(2) (interquartile range 0.37, 0.52). Over a median of 3.3 years, there were 117 deaths, 104 transplants, and 20 ventricular assist device placements in our cohort. Diminished CPI (<0.44 W/m(2) ) was associated with increased adverse outcomes [hazard ratio (HR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-3.1, P < 0.0001). The prognostic value of CPI remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, cardiac index, pulmonary vascular resistance, left ventricular ejection fraction, and creatinine [HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.3, P = 0.04). Furthermore, CPI can risk stratify independently of peak oxygen consumption (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.4, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Resting cardiac power index provides independent and incremental prediction in adverse outcomes beyond traditional haemodynamic and cardio-renal risk factors.
Authors: Christoph Scharf; Tobias Merz; Wolfgang Kiowski; Erwin Oechslin; Christoph Schalcher; Hans Peter Brunner-La Rocca Journal: Chest Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Mariantonietta Cicoira; Constantinos H Davos; Darrel P Francis; Wolfram Doehner; Luisa Zanolla; Lorenzo Franceschini; Massimo F Piepoli; Andrew J S Coats; Piero Zardini; Philip A Poole-Wilson; Stefan D Anker Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Rupert Fincke; Judith S Hochman; April M Lowe; Venu Menon; James N Slater; John G Webb; Thierry H LeJemtel; Gad Cotter Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-07-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nikhil Narang; Mark Dela Cruz; Teruhiko Imamura; Ben Chung; Ann B Nguyen; Luise Holzhauser; Bryan A Smith; Sara Kalantari; Jayant Raikhelkar; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene H Kim; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Daniel Burkhoff; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Wolfgang Huber; Stephan Fuchs; Andreas Minning; Claudius Küchle; Marlena Braun; Analena Beitz; Caroline Schultheiss; Sebastian Mair; Veit Phillip; Sebastian Schmid; Roland M Schmid; Tobias Lahmer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Keren Doenyas-Barak; Marcia H F G de Abreu; Lucas E Borges; Helcio A Tavares Filho; Feng Yunlin; Zou Yurong; Nathan W Levin; Allen M Kaufman; Shay Efrati; David Pereg; Ilya Litovchik; Shmuel Fuchs; Sa'ar Minha Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Michael Thomas Coll Barroso; Matthias Wilhelm Hoppe; Philip Boehme; Thomas Krahn; Christian Kiefer; Frank Kramer; Thomas Mondritzki; Phillipe Pirez; Wilfried Dinh Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Pradyumna Agasthi; Sai Harika Pujari; Farouk Mookadam; Andrew Tseng; Nithin R Venepally; Panwen Wang; Mohamed Allam; John Sweeney; Mackram Eleid; Floyd David Fortuin; David R Holmes; Nirat Beohar; Reza Arsanjani Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.759