Why the study?
Because resting echocardiographic measures correlate weakly with exercise capacity, this study aimed to establish how much exercise performance variability is explained by myocardial recruitment and which cardiac function parameters best relate to exercise performance.
Which echocardiographic parameters of cardiac function are most closely related to exercise performance (VO2 peak) during a cardiopulmonary exercise test?
Which echocardiographic parameters of cardiac function are most closely related to exercise performance (VO2 peak) during a cardiopulmonary exercise test?
Systolic longitudinal velocity (S') during exercise is a better predictor of exercise performance (VO2 peak) than LVEF, stroke volume, or global longitudinal strain.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Myocardial recruitment parameters may explain more exercise capacity variability than resting measures; leaves open their role in clinical assessment.
Background: The relationship between resting echocardiographic measures of cardiac function and exercise capacity is weak. The details of ventricular augmentation may provide insight into determinants of cardiac efficiency for optimal exercise performance. The aims of this study were to establish how much of the variability in exercise performance could be explained by myocardial recruitment and which parameters describing cardiac function were most closely related to exercise performance. Methods: Untrained volunteers were recruited before training for the London Marathon. All performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test combined with stress echocardiography. Systolic and diastolic longitudinal velocities (S′ and E′), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), stroke volume (SV), and strain (GLS) were obtained throughout exercise. Results: A variety of parameters including S′, E′, GLS, and SV showed a correlation with V̇o 2 throughout exercise (ρ = 0.83, P < 0.0001). At the prespecified sample point (respiratory exchange ratio > 1.0) only SV and S′ were predictive of V̇o 2 peak. LVEF and E′ as well as both global longitudinal and circumferential strain showed no correlation with V̇o 2 peak. The systolic efficiency slope (SES) that we developed by determining the individual regression lines for V̇o 2 and S′ showed a relationship between with V̇o 2 peak for both septal S′, r = 0.57, P < 0.001, and lateral S′, r = 0.53, P < 0.001. Conclusion: A detailed description of myocardial function is described, linear for S′ and E′ and a plateau for EF and GLS. S′ during exercise is a better predictor of exercise performance than LVEF, SV, or GLS. The SES slope predicted V̇o 2 peak, suggesting the process driving systolic velocity and its augmentation is a key determinant of exercise ability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zalen et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: