4.4 Article

Usefulness of Non-Invasive Measurement of Cardiac Output During Sub-Maximal Exercise to Predict Outcome in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 11, 页码 1556-1560

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.07.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peak oxygen consumption (VO2) is a powerful prognostic predictor of survival in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) because it provides an indirect assessment of a patient's ability to increase cardiac output (CO). However, many patients with CHF who undergo cardiopulmonary exercise testing are unable to perform maximal exercise. New metabolic carts coupled with the inert gas rebreathing technique provide a noninvasive measurement of CO. Whether the noninvasive measurement of CO at a fixed submaximal workload can predict outcome is unknown. This study's population comprised 259 patients (mean age 54 +/- 14 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 27 +/- 14%) with CHF who underwent symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing. VO2 and CO were measured at rest, at 25 W, and at peak exercise. Submaximal exercise was defined as <80% peak VO2. Among 259 patients, 145 had VO2 at 25 W <80% of peak. VO2 at 25 W averaged 9.3 +/- 1.8 ml/kg/min. This VO2 represented 62 +/- 11% of peak VO2, which averaged 15.4 +/- 4.4 ml/kg/min. Prospective follow-up averaged 521 337 days. In this cohort, there were 15 outcome events (death, urgent heart transplantation, or implantation of a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplantation). On univariate Cox hazard analysis, CO at 25 W (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.84, p = 0.002) was found to be significant predictor of events of outcome. In conclusion, CO at 25 W measured noninvasively during submaximal exercise may have potential value as a predictor of outcomes in patients with CHF. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights. reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1556-1560)

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

4.4
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