Omar F AbouEzzeddine1, Anuradha Lala2, Prateeti P Khazanie3, Ravi Shah4, Jennifer E Ho5, Horng H Chen6, Peter S Pang7, Steven E McNulty8, Kevin J Anstrom8, Adrian F Hernandez8, Margaret M Redfield6. 1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Electronic address: Abouezzeddine.Omar@mayo.edu. 2. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Duke University Medical Center and Duke Heart Center, Durham, NC. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 6. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 7. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN. 8. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acute heart failure (AHF) Syndromes International Working Group proposed that dyspnea be assessed under standardized, incrementally provocative maneuvers and called for studies to assess the feasibility of this approach. We sought to assess the feasibility and statistical characteristics of a novel provocative dyspnea severity score (pDS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analog scale (DVAS) in an AHF trial. METHODS: At enrollment, 24, 48 and 72hours, 230 ROSE-AHF patients completed a DVAS. Dyspnea was then assessed with 5-point Likert dyspnea scales administered during 4 stages (A: upright-with O2, B: upright-without O2, C: supine-without O2 and D: exercise-without O2). Patients with moderate or less dyspnea were eligible for the next stage. RESULTS: At enrollment, oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation were highly feasible (≥97%), provoking more severe dyspnea (≥1 Likert point) in 24% and 42% of eligible patients, respectively. Exercise provocation had low feasibility with 38% of eligible patients unable to exercise due to factors other than dyspnea. A pDS was constructed from Likert scales during the 3 feasible assessment conditions (A-C). Relative to DVAS, the distribution of the pDS was more skewed with a high "ceiling effect" at enrollment (23%) limiting sensitivity to change. Change in pDS was not related to decongestion or 60-day outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation are feasible and elicit more severe dyspnea, exercise provocation had unacceptable feasibility in this AHF cohort. The statistical characteristics of a pDS based on feasible provocation measures do not support its potential as a robust dyspnea assessment tool in AHF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The acute heart failure (AHF) Syndromes International Working Group proposed that dyspnea be assessed under standardized, incrementally provocative maneuvers and called for studies to assess the feasibility of this approach. We sought to assess the feasibility and statistical characteristics of a novel provocative dyspnea severity score (pDS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analog scale (DVAS) in an AHF trial. METHODS: At enrollment, 24, 48 and 72hours, 230 ROSE-AHF patients completed a DVAS. Dyspnea was then assessed with 5-point Likert dyspnea scales administered during 4 stages (A: upright-with O2, B: upright-without O2, C: supine-without O2 and D: exercise-without O2). Patients with moderate or less dyspnea were eligible for the next stage. RESULTS: At enrollment, oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation were highly feasible (≥97%), provoking more severe dyspnea (≥1 Likert point) in 24% and 42% of eligible patients, respectively. Exercise provocation had low feasibility with 38% of eligible patients unable to exercise due to factors other than dyspnea. A pDS was constructed from Likert scales during the 3 feasible assessment conditions (A-C). Relative to DVAS, the distribution of the pDS was more skewed with a high "ceiling effect" at enrollment (23%) limiting sensitivity to change. Change in pDS was not related to decongestion or 60-day outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although oxygen withdrawal and supine provocation are feasible and elicit more severe dyspnea, exercise provocation had unacceptable feasibility in this AHF cohort. The statistical characteristics of a pDS based on feasible provocation measures do not support its potential as a robust dyspnea assessment tool in AHF.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John R Teerlink; Gad Cotter; Beth A Davison; G Michael Felker; Gerasimos Filippatos; Barry H Greenberg; Piotr Ponikowski; Elaine Unemori; Adriaan A Voors; Kirkwood F Adams; Maria I Dorobantu; Liliana R Grinfeld; Guillaume Jondeau; Alon Marmor; Josep Masip; Peter S Pang; Karl Werdan; Sam L Teichman; Angelo Trapani; Christopher A Bush; Rajnish Saini; Christoph Schumacher; Thomas M Severin; Marco Metra Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Michael Felker; Kerry L Lee; David A Bull; Margaret M Redfield; Lynne W Stevenson; Steven R Goldsmith; Martin M LeWinter; Anita Deswal; Jean L Rouleau; Elizabeth O Ofili; Kevin J Anstrom; Adrian F Hernandez; Steven E McNulty; Eric J Velazquez; Abdallah G Kfoury; Horng H Chen; Michael M Givertz; Marc J Semigran; Bradley A Bart; Alice M Mascette; Eugene Braunwald; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marco Metra; Christopher M O'Connor; Beth A Davison; John G F Cleland; Piotr Ponikowski; John R Teerlink; Adriaan A Voors; Michael M Givertz; George A Mansoor; Daniel M Bloomfield; Gang Jia; Paul DeLucca; Barry Massie; Howard Dittrich; Gad Cotter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Robert J Mentz; Adrian F Hernandez; Amanda Stebbins; Justin A Ezekowitz; G Michael Felker; Gretchen M Heizer; Dan Atar; John R Teerlink; Robert M Califf; Barry M Massie; Vic Hasselblad; Randall C Starling; Christopher M O'Connor; Piotr Ponikowski Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Mahoto Kato; Lynne W Stevenson; Maryse Palardy; Patricia M Campbell; Christopher W May; Neal K Lakdawala; Garrick Stewart; Anju Nohria; Joseph G Rogers; J Thomas Heywood; Mihai Gheorghiade; Eldrin F Lewis; Xiaojuan Mi; Soko Setoguchi Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Peter S Pang; John G F Cleland; John R Teerlink; Sean P Collins; Christopher J Lindsell; George Sopko; W Frank Peacock; Gregg C Fonarow; Amer Z Aldeen; J Douglas Kirk; Alan B Storrow; Miguel Tavares; Alexandre Mebazaa; Edmond Roland; Barry M Massie; Alan S Maisel; Michel Komajda; Gerasimos Filippatos; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Horng H Chen; Kevin J Anstrom; Michael M Givertz; Lynne W Stevenson; Marc J Semigran; Steven R Goldsmith; Bradley A Bart; David A Bull; Josef Stehlik; Martin M LeWinter; Marvin A Konstam; Gordon S Huggins; Jean L Rouleau; Eileen O'Meara; W H Wilson Tang; Randall C Starling; Javed Butler; Anita Deswal; G Michael Felker; Christopher M O'Connor; Raphael E Bonita; Kenneth B Margulies; Thomas P Cappola; Elizabeth O Ofili; Douglas L Mann; Víctor G Dávila-Román; Steven E McNulty; Barry A Borlaug; Eric J Velazquez; Kerry L Lee; Monica R Shah; Adrian F Hernandez; Eugene Braunwald; Margaret M Redfield Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joyce N Njoroge; Baljash Cheema; Andrew P Ambrosy; Stephen J Greene; Sean P Collins; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Alexandre Mebazaa; Ovidiu Chioncel; Javed Butler; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Sean P Collins; Michael Thorn; Richard M Nowak; Phillip D Levy; Gregory J Fermann; Brian C Hiestand; Tillman Douglas Cowart; Robert P Venuti; William R Hiatt; ShiYin Foo; Peter S Pang Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 4.241