BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ECR) enhances exercise capacity. This study examined the relationship between the 2 responses.Methods and Results: Sixty-four consecutive HFrEF patients who participated in a 3-month ECR program after CRT were investigated. Patients were categorized according to a median improvement in peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) after ECR of 7% as either good (n=32; mean percentage change in PV̇O2[%∆PV̇O2]=23.2%) or poor (n=32; mean %∆PV̇O2=2.5%) responders. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the good and poor responders, except for PV̇O2(51% vs. 59%, respectively; P=0.01). The proportion of good CRT responders was similar between the good and poor responders (%∆LVEF ≥10%; 53% vs. 47%, respectively; P=NS). Overall, there was no significant correlation between %∆LVEF after CRT and %∆PV̇O2after ECR. Notably, among poor CRT responders (n=32), the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (0% vs. 29%; P<0.03) and baseline PV̇O2(48% vs. 57%; P<0.05) were significantly lower among those with a good (n=15) than poor (n=17) response to ECR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, good ECR and CRT responses are unrelated. A good PV̇O2response to ECR can be achieved even in poor CRT responders, particularly in those with a sinus rhythm or low baseline PV̇O2.
BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ECR) enhances exercise capacity. This study examined the relationship between the 2 responses.Methods and Results: Sixty-four consecutive HFrEF patients who participated in a 3-month ECR program after CRT were investigated. Patients were categorized according to a median improvement in peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) after ECR of 7% as either good (n=32; mean percentage change in PV̇O2[%∆PV̇O2]=23.2%) or poor (n=32; mean %∆PV̇O2=2.5%) responders. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the good and poor responders, except for PV̇O2(51% vs. 59%, respectively; P=0.01). The proportion of good CRT responders was similar between the good and poor responders (%∆LVEF ≥10%; 53% vs. 47%, respectively; P=NS). Overall, there was no significant correlation between %∆LVEF after CRT and %∆PV̇O2after ECR. Notably, among poor CRT responders (n=32), the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (0% vs. 29%; P<0.03) and baseline PV̇O2(48% vs. 57%; P<0.05) were significantly lower among those with a good (n=15) than poor (n=17) response to ECR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, good ECR and CRT responses are unrelated. A good PV̇O2response to ECR can be achieved even in poor CRT responders, particularly in those with a sinus rhythm or low baseline PV̇O2.
Authors: Tania Seoane; Beatriz Bullon; Patricia Fernandez-Riejos; Juan Carlos Garcia-Rubira; Nestor Garcia-Gonzalez; Pablo Villar-Calle; Jose Luis Quiles; Maurizio Battino; Pedro Bullon Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 4.964