4.6 Review

Physiological and clinical relevance of exercise ventilatory efficiency in COPD

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 49, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02036-2016

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. New Clinician Scientist Program from the Southeastern Ontario Academic Medical Association (SEAMO), Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exercise ventilation (V'E) relative to carbon dioxide output (V'CO2) is particularly relevant to patients limited by the respiratory system, e.g. those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD). High V'E- V'CO2 ( poor ventilatory efficiency) has been found to be a key physiological abnormality in symptomatic patients with largely preserved forced expiratory volume in 1 s ( FEV1). Establishing an association between high V'E- V'CO2 and exertional dyspnoea in mild COPD provides evidence that exercise intolerance is not a mere consequence of detraining. As the disease evolves, poor ventilatory efficiency might help explaining out- of- proportion breathlessness ( to FEV1 impairment). Regardless, disease severity, cardiocirculatory co-morbidities such as heart failure and pulmonary hypertension have been found to increase V'E- V'CO2. In fact, a high V'E- V'CO2 has been found to be a powerful predictor of poor outcome in lung resection surgery. Moreover, a high V'E- V'CO2 has added value to resting lung hyperinflation in predicting all-cause and respiratory mortality across the spectrum of COPD severity. Documenting improved ventilatory efficiency after lung transplantation and lung volume reduction surgery provides objective evidence of treatment efficacy. Considering the usefulness of exercise ventilatory efficiency in different clinical scenarios, the V'E- V'CO2 relationship should be valued in the interpretation of cardiopulmonary exercise tests in patients with mild-to-end-stage COPD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available