4.6 Article

Prognostic impact of peakVO2-changes in stable CHF on chronic beta-blocker treatment.

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 2, Pages 125-130

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.11.038

Keywords

chronic heart failure; risk stratification; peakVO2; serial measurements; beta-blocker therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Peak oxygen uptake (pVO2) is used for risk stratification in chronic heart failure (CHF), but little is known about the prognostic impact of pVO2-changes in patients on chronic beta-blocker (BBL) therapy. We therefore prospectively evaluated individual pVO2-changes at a 6-month interval in patients all receiving BBL. Methods: 194 patients with stable CHF on stable medication were included (V1) and underwent clinical evaluation and exercise testing. Testing was repeated (V2) at 5.7 +/- 1.5 months after V1 and patients were followed > 12 months after V2. Death or hospitalisation due to cardiac reasons was the predefined EP (EPP, end-point positive; n= 62; EPN, end-point negative; n= 113). Results: Initial characteristics did not differ between EPP and EPN. Multivariate cox regression analysis revealed that change of pVO2 (EPP: -0.6+/-2.6 ml/kg min; EPN: +2.5+/-3.3 ml/kg min; p<0.001) was independent to pVO2, LVEF, NTproBNP and NYHA at V2 for prediction of the combined end-point during follow-up. An increase of pVO2 by 10% was identified as an adequate cut-off value for risk stratification and ROC-analysis showed the significant incremental prognostic value of the determination of pVO2 changes in combination with pVO2. Conclusions: Serial measurements of pVO2 yield additional information for risk stratification in clinically homogenous CHF patients receiving BBL. This is the first study demonstrating this fact within a narrow predefined interval with all patients on BBL. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available