AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction demonstrate an increased ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇E /V̇CO2 ) slope. The physiological correlates of the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope remain unclear in the two HF phenotypes. We hypothesized that changes in the physiological dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD /VT ) and arterial CO2 tension (PaCO2 ) differentially contribute to the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope in HFrEF vs. HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults with HFrEF (n = 32) and HFpEF (n = 27) [mean ± standard deviation (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction: 22 ± 7% and 61 ± 9%, respectively; mean ± SD body mass index: 28 ± 4 kg/m2 and 33 ± 6 kg/m2 , respectively; P < 0.01] performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing with breath-by-breath ventilation and gas exchange measurements. PaCO2 was measured via radial arterial catheterization. We calculated the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope via linear regression, and VD /VT = 1 - [(863 × V̇CO2 )/(V̇E × PaCO2 )]. Resting VD /VT (0.48 ± 0.08 vs. 0.41 ± 0.11; P = 0.04), but not PaCO2 (38 ± 5 mmHg vs. 40 ± 3 mmHg; P = 0.21) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. Peak exercise VD /VT (0.39 ± 0.08 vs. 0.32 ± 0.12; P = 0.02) and PaCO2 (33 ± 6 mmHg vs. 38 ± 4 mmHg; P < 0.01) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. The V̇E /V̇CO2 slope was higher in HFrEF compared with HFpEF (44 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 8; P < 0.01). Variance associated with the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope in HFrEF and HFpEF was explained by peak exercise VD /VT (R2 = 0.30 and R2 = 0.50, respectively) and PaCO2 (R2 = 0.64 and R2 = 0.28, respectively), but the relative contributions of each differed (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope and both VD /VT and PaCO2 are robust, but differ between HFpEF and HFrEF. Increasing V̇E /V̇CO2 slope appears to be strongly explained by mechanisms influential in regulating PaCO2 in HFrEF, which contrasts with the strong role of increased VD /VT in HFpEF.
AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction demonstrate an increased ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇E /V̇CO2 ) slope. The physiological correlates of the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope remain unclear in the two HF phenotypes. We hypothesized that changes in the physiological dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD /VT ) and arterial CO2 tension (PaCO2 ) differentially contribute to the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope in HFrEF vs. HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults with HFrEF (n = 32) and HFpEF (n = 27) [mean ± standard deviation (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction: 22 ± 7% and 61 ± 9%, respectively; mean ± SD body mass index: 28 ± 4 kg/m2 and 33 ± 6 kg/m2 , respectively; P < 0.01] performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing with breath-by-breath ventilation and gas exchange measurements. PaCO2 was measured via radial arterial catheterization. We calculated the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope via linear regression, and VD /VT = 1 - [(863 × V̇CO2 )/(V̇E × PaCO2 )]. Resting VD /VT (0.48 ± 0.08 vs. 0.41 ± 0.11; P = 0.04), but not PaCO2 (38 ± 5 mmHg vs. 40 ± 3 mmHg; P = 0.21) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. Peak exercise VD /VT (0.39 ± 0.08 vs. 0.32 ± 0.12; P = 0.02) and PaCO2 (33 ± 6 mmHg vs. 38 ± 4 mmHg; P < 0.01) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. The V̇E /V̇CO2 slope was higher in HFrEF compared with HFpEF (44 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 8; P < 0.01). Variance associated with the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope in HFrEF and HFpEF was explained by peak exercise VD /VT (R2 = 0.30 and R2 = 0.50, respectively) and PaCO2 (R2 = 0.64 and R2 = 0.28, respectively), but the relative contributions of each differed (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope and both VD /VT and PaCO2 are robust, but differ between HFpEF and HFrEF. Increasing V̇E /V̇CO2 slope appears to be strongly explained by mechanisms influential in regulating PaCO2 in HFrEF, which contrasts with the strong role of increased VD /VT in HFpEF.
Authors: Mark J Haykowsky; Peter H Brubaker; Jerry M John; Kathryn P Stewart; Timothy M Morgan; Dalane W Kitzman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ivana Nedeljkovic; Marko Banovic; Jelena Stepanovic; Vojislav Giga; Ana Djordjevic-Dikic; Danijela Trifunovic; Milan Nedeljkovic; Milan Petrovic; Milan Dobric; Nenad Dikic; Milan Zlatar; Branko Beleslin Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Yogesh N V Reddy; Masaru Obokata; Brandon Wiley; Katlyn E Koepp; Caitlin C Jorgenson; Alexander Egbe; Vojtech Melenovsky; Rickey E Carter; Barry A Borlaug Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Masaru Obokata; Thomas P Olson; Yogesh N V Reddy; Vojtech Melenovsky; Garvan C Kane; Barry A Borlaug Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Bryce N Balmain; Andrew R Tomlinson; James P MacNamara; Satyam Sarma; Benjamin D Levine; Linda S Hynan; Tony G Babb Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2021-11-11
Authors: Joshua R Smith; Erik H Van Iterson; Bruce D Johnson; Barry A Borlaug; Thomas P Olson Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Masaru Obokata; Yogesh N V Reddy; Katlyn E Koepp; Glenn M Stewart; Thomas P Olson; Vojtech Melenovsky; Daniel Burkhoff; Barry A Borlaug Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Bryce N Balmain; Andrew R Tomlinson; James P MacNamara; Satyam Sarma; Benjamin D Levine; Linda S Hynan; Tony G Babb Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2022-02-03