4.5 Article

The Lowest VE/VCO2 Ratio During Exercise as a Predictor of Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 756-762

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.05.012

关键词

Exercise testing; oxygen uptake; outcomes

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR007122] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG021332, R37 AG018915, R01 AG018915] Funding Source: Medline
  3. RRD VA [IK6 RX002477] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The lowest minute ventilation (VE) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) ratio during exercise has been suggested to be the most stable and reproducible marker of ventilatory efficiency in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the prognostic power of this index is unknown. Methods and Results: A total of 847 HF patients underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) and were followed for 3 years. The associations between the lowest VE/VCO2 ratio, maximal oxygen uptake (peak VO2), the VE/VCO2 slope, and major events (death or transplantation) were evaluated using proportional hazards analysis; adequacy of the predictive models was assessed using Akaike information criterion (AIC) weights. There were 147 major adverse events. In multivariate analysis, the lowest VE/VCO2 ratio (higher ratio associated with greater risk) was similar to the VE/VCO2 slope in predicting risk (hazard ratios [HR] per unit increment 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4, and 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.7, respectively; P < .01 ), followed by peak VO2 (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = .0 1). Patients exhibiting abnormalities for all 3 responses had an 11.6-fold higher risk. The AIC weight for the 3 variables combined (0.94) was higher than any single response or any combination of 2. The model including all 3 responses remained the most powerful after adjustment for D-blocker use, type of HF, and after applying different cut points for high risk. Conclusions: The lowest VENCO2 ratio adds to the prognostic power of conventional CPX responses in HF (J Cardiac Fail 2009;15:756-762)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据