Why the study?
Do noninvasive methods (acetylene gas uptake, echocardiography, and oxygen pulse) demonstrate concurrent validity for measuring exercise stroke volume in patients with HFpEF?
Do noninvasive methods (acetylene gas uptake, echocardiography, and oxygen pulse) demonstrate concurrent validity for measuring exercise stroke volume in patients with HFpEF?
Noninvasive methods including acetylene gas uptake, echocardiography, and oxygen pulse demonstrate moderate-to-strong concurrent validity for assessing exercise stroke volume in patients with HFpEF.
Noninvasive SV estimates show moderate validity in HFpEF; leaves open larger validation before routine phenotyping use.
INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) plays an important role in properly phenotyping signs and symptoms of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The prognostic value of CPET is strengthened when accompanied by cardiac hemodynamic measurements. Although recognized as the "gold" standard, cardiac catheterization is impractical for routine CPET. Thus, advancing the scientific/methodologic understanding of noninvasive techniques for exercise cardiac hemodynamic assessment is clinically impactful in HFpEF. This study tested the concurrent validity of noninvasive acetylene gas (C2H2) uptake, echocardiography (ECHO), and oxygen pulse (O2pulse) for measuring/predicting exercise stroke volume (SV) in HFpEF. METHODS: Eighteen white HFpEF and 18 age-/sex-matched healthy controls participated in upright CPET (ages, 69 ± 9 yr vs 63 ± 9 yr). At rest, 20 W, and peak exercise, SV was measured at steady-state via C2H2 rebreathe (SVACET) and ECHO (SVECHO), whereas O2pulse was derived (=V˙O2/HR). RESULTS: Resting relationships between SVACET and SVECHO, SVECHO and O2pulse, or SVACET and O2pulse were significant in HFpEF (R = 0.30, 0.36, 0.67), but not controls (R = 0.07, 0.01, 0.09), respectively. Resting relationships persisted to 20 W in HFpEF (R = 0.70, 0.53, 0.70) and controls (R = 0.05, 0.07, 0.21), respectively. Peak exercise relationships were significant in HFpEF (R = 0.62, 0.24, 0.64), but only for SVACET versus O2pulse in controls (R = 0.07, 0.04, 0.33), respectively. Standardized standard error of estimate between techniques was strongest in HFpEF at 20 W: SVACET versus SVECHO = 0.57 ± 0.22; SVECHO versus O2pulse = 0.71 ± 0.28; SVACET versus O2pulse = 0.56 ± 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: Constituting a clinically impactful step towards construct validation testing, these data suggest SVACET, SVECHO, and O2pulse demonstrate moderate-to-strong concurrent validity for measuring/predicting exercise SV in HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iterson et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: