Key result
Heart transplant recipients had significantly reduced peak cardiac index during incremental exercise compared to donor age-matched controls (6.7 vs. 11.6 L/min/m2) due to impaired preload and heart rate reserve.
Why the study?
Does the cardiovascular response to incremental and sustained submaximal exercise differ in heart transplant recipients compared to healthy controls?
Observational (n=20)
Does the cardiovascular response to incremental and sustained submaximal exercise differ in heart transplant recipients compared to healthy controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.7% vs 11.6%
Heart transplant recipients exhibit impaired preload, heart rate, and vascular reserve during exercise compared to healthy controls.
May constrain exercise tolerance in heart transplant recipients; leaves open mechanisms and interventions for prospective study.
The cardiovascular response to exercise in heart transplant recipients (HTR) has been compared with that of healthy individuals matched to the recipient age (RM controls). However, no study has compared HTR with donor age-matched (DM) controls. Moreover, the cardiovascular response to sustained submaximal exercise in HTR requires further evaluation. We therefore examined cardiovascular responses during incremental exercise and sustained (1 h) submaximal aerobic exercise in 9 clinically stable HTR [63 +/- 10 yr of age, 24.2 +/- 10.9 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) peak O(2) uptake (Vo(2peak))] and 11 healthy age-matched controls (60 +/- 11 yr of age and 36.3 +/- 10.7 ml.kg(-1) x min(-1) Vo(2peak) for 6 RM controls and 35 +/- 8 yr of age and 51.1 +/- 10.4 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) Vo(2peak) for 5 DM controls). Heart rate (HR) and left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes (2-dimensional echocardiography) indexed to body surface area [end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (EDVI and ESVI)], cardiac output (CI), ejection fraction (EF), systemic vascular resistance (SVRI), end-systolic elastance index, and arterial elastance index were determined. Although systolic function was maintained during incremental exercise, peak CI was significantly reduced (6.7 +/- 2.4 vs. 11.6 +/- 1.4 l x min(-1) x m(-2)), secondary to blunted HR, EDVI, and increased peak SVRI, in HTR compared with DM controls. The lower peak CI in HTR than in RM controls was due to blunted peak EDVI (54.1 +/- 13.2 vs. 68.6 +/- 5.7 ml/m(2)). During sustained submaximal exercise, HTR exhausted their preload reserve, a response for which changes in ESVI, HR, or EF did not fully compensate. Thus it appears that HTR are limited by impaired preload reserve, HR reserve, and vascular reserve during exercise conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scott et al. (2008) conducted an observational in Heart transplant recipients (n=20). Heart transplant recipient status vs. Healthy age-matched controls (recipient age-matched and donor age-matched) was evaluated on Peak cardiac index (CI) during incremental exercise. Heart transplant recipients had significantly reduced peak cardiac index during incremental exercise compared to donor age-matched controls (6.7 vs. 11.6 L/min/m2) due to impaired preload and heart rate reserve.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: