PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 1, 2017Journal of the American Heart Association168 citationsOpen Access

Prognostic Value of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Heart Failure With Reduced, Midrange, and Preserved Ejection Fraction

View Full Paper
WNWilson NadruzEWErin WestMSMorten Sengeløv

Structured PICO

Do cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables (peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope) predict outcomes across heart failure phenotypes (HFpEF, HFmEF, HFrEF)?

P
Population
969 patients with heart failure, including 195 with HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%), 144 with HFmEF (LVEF 40–49%), and 630 with HFrEF (LVEF <40%).
I
Intervention
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) assessing peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) slope
O
Outcome
Composite outcome of death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation at median follow-up of 4.2 yearscomposite

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables (peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope) provide significant and incremental prognostic value in HFpEF, offering even greater risk discrimination than in HFrEF.

Abstract

Background This study aimed to compare the independent and incremental prognostic value of peak oxygen consumption ( VO 2 ) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production ( VE / VCO 2 ) in heart failure ( HF ) with preserved ( HF p EF ), midrange ( HF m EF ), and reduced ( HF r EF ) ejection fraction ( LVEF ). Methods and Results In 195 HF p EF ( LVEF ≥50%), 144 HF m EF ( LVEF 40–49%), and 630 HF r EF ( LVEF <40%) patients, we assessed the association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables with the composite outcome of death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (256 events; median follow‐up of 4.2 years), and 2‐year incident HF hospitalization (244 events). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, greater association with outcomes in HF p EF than HF r EF were noted with peak VO 2 ( HR 95% confidence interval : 0.76 0.67–0.87 versus 0.87 0.83–0.90 for the composite outcome, P interaction =0.052; 0.77 0.69–0.86 versus 0.92 0.88–0.95, respectively for HF hospitalization, P interaction =0.003) and VE / VCO 2 slope (1.11 1.06–1.17 versus 1.04 1.03–1.06, respectively for the composite outcome, P interaction =0.012; 1.10 1.05–1.15 versus 1.04 1.03–1.06, respectively for HF hospitalization, P interaction =0.019). In HF m EF , peak VO 2 and VE / VCO 2 slope were associated with the composite outcome (0.79 0.70–0.90 and 1.12 1.05–1.19, respectively), while only peak VO 2 was related to HF hospitalization (0.81 0.72–0.92). In HF p EF and HF r EF , peak VO 2 and VE / VCO 2 slope provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical variables based on the C‐statistic, net reclassification improvement, and integrated diagnostic improvement, with models containing both measures demonstrating the greatest incremental value. Conclusions Both peak VO 2 and VE / VCO 2 slope provided incremental value beyond clinical characteristics and LVEF for predicting outcomes in HF p EF . Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables provided greater risk discrimination in HF p EF than HF r EF .

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nadruz et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1bcb7dc97d63156a5ef301https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.006000
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper