4.4 Article

Effects of Healthy Aging on the Cardiopulmonary Hemodynamic Response to Exercise

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 114, Issue 1, Pages 131-135

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.04.011

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Interuniversity Cardiology Institute Netherlands, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to define the influence of healthy aging on the central hemodynamic response to exercise. Advancing age results in numerous alterations to the cardiovascular system and is a major risk factor to develop heart failure. In patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, there is an increasing interest in the incorporation of stress hemodynamic studies into the diagnostic evaluation pathway. However, many patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are older, and there are few data regarding the effect of aging on the normal central hemodynamic responses to exercise. Therefore, we examined 55 healthy patients using right-sided cardiac catheterization with exercise. Mean age was 49.6 years, with 36% older than 55 years. On exercise, the mean pulmonary artery pressure was higher with advancing age (r = 0.412, p = 0.002). Additionally, age was negatively associated with cardiac index (r = 0.407, p = 0.005). The exercise-induced rise in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (r = 0.378, p = 0.004) was greater with advancing age. Pulse pressure measured during exercise (r = 0.541, p <0.01) increased with age, as did diastolic dysfunction assessed by E/A ratio (r = 0.569, p <0.001). In conclusion, aging was associated with decreased cardiac output and increased pulmonary artery pressure during exercise, which developed as the consequence of both increased pulmonary vasculature resistance and higher left ventricular filling pressures. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available