Key result
Exercise oscillatory ventilation linked to worse survival in both HFrEF and HFmrEF.
Why the study?
Exercise oscillatory ventilation is a key prognostic parameter in HFrEF and HFpEF, but data on its prognostic role in HFmrEF were lacking.
Does the presence of exercise oscillatory ventilation predict worse survival in patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF?
Cohort (n=5,721)
Does the presence of exercise oscillatory ventilation predict worse survival in patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF?
Exercise oscillatory ventilation has a similar prevalence and ominous prognostic value in both HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, indicating a need for intensive follow-up.
EOV may flag higher-risk HFmrEF and HFrEF patients for closer monitoring; extends prior observations but leaves open therapeutic implications.
AIMS: Exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) is a pivotal cardiopulmonary exercise test parameter for the prognostic evaluation of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). It has been described in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (<40%, HFrEF) and with HF with preserved ejection fraction (>50%, HFpEF), but no data are available for patients with HF with mid-range ejection fraction (40-49%, HFmrEF). The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic role of EOV in HFmrEF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 1239 patients with HFmrEF and 4482 patients with HFrEF, enrolled in the MECKI score database, with a 2-year follow-up. The study endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, and ventricular assist device implantation. We identified EOV in 968 cases (16% and 17% of cases in HFmrEF and HFrEF, respectively). HFrEF EOV+ patients were significantly older, and their parameters suggested a more severe HF than HFrEF EOV- patients. A similar behaviour was found in HFmrEF EOV+ vs. EOV- patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis, irrespective of ejection fraction, showed that EOV is associated with a worse survival, and that patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF EOV+ had a significantly worse outcome than the EOV- of the same ejection fraction groups. EOV-associated survival differences in HFmrEF patients started after 18 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Exercise oscillatory ventilation has a similar prevalence and ominous prognostic value in both HFmrEF and HFrEF patients, indicating a group of patients in need of a more intensive follow-up and a more aggressive therapy. In HFmrEF, the survival curves between EOV+ and EOV- patients diverged only after 18 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rovai et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced and mid-range ejection fraction (n=5,721). Exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) vs. Absence of exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV-) was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, and ventricular assist device implantation. Exercise oscillatory ventilation, present in 16% of HFmrEF and 17% of HFrEF patients, was associated with significantly worse survival irrespective of ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: