scholarly journals Corrigendum to ‘Role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in clinical stratification in heart failure. A position paper from the Committee on Exercise Physiology and Training of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology’ [Eur J He

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1501-1501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ugo Corrà ◽  
Pier Giuseppe Agostoni ◽  
Stefan D. Anker ◽  
Andrew J.S. Coats ◽  
Maria G. Crespo Leiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Exercise Testing ◽  
European Society ◽  
Exercise Physiology ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing ◽  
Position Paper ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology ◽  
And Training

scholarly journals Summary Statement on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Chronic Heart Failure due to Left Ventricular Dysfunction Recommendations for Performance and Interpretation

2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ugo Corrà ◽  
Massimo F. Piepoli
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Left Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Exercise Testing ◽  
Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Exercise Physiology ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a non-invasive tool that provides the physician with relevant information to assess the integrated response to exercise involving pulmonary, cardiovascular, haematopoietic, neuro-psychological, and skeletal muscle systems. Measurement of expiratory gases during exercise allows the best estimate of functional capacity, grade the severity of the impairment, objectively evaluate the response to interventions, objectively track the progression of disease, and assist in differentiating cardiac from pulmonary limitations in exercise tolerance. To achieve optimal use of this test in every day clinical practice, clarification of conceptual issues and standardization of CPET practices are necessary. Recently, a Statement on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Chronic Heart Failure due to Left Ventricular Dysfunction, by the Gruppo Italiano di Cardiologia Riabilitativa and endorsed by the Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology of the European Society of Cardiology, has been published. Here are resumed the cardinal points of the Statement: (1) Definition of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Parameters for Appropriate Use in Chronic Heart Failure, (2) How to Perform Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Chronic Heart Failure, (3) Interpretation of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Chronic Heart Failure and Future Applications.

scholarly journals Risk stratification and survival in patients with HFmrEF: the role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J.G Westphal ◽  
P.C Schulze
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Exercise Testing ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Exercise ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background The prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is established for risk stratification in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the introduction of HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as an additional category in 2016, optimal management strategy and risk stratification for these patients is a field of ongoing research. Purpose Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is only one part of the picture when planning treatment and estimating long time risk for patients with HF. We planned to investigate the predictive long-term value of exercise intolerance as measured by CPET in patients with HFmrEF in comparison to HFrEF. Methods We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of ambulatory consecutive patients that showed signs of heart failure (NYHA functional class II or III) and had a LVEF of 49% or below as measured by echocardiography at the time of CPET. All patients underwent CPET evaluation with an upright bicycle between 2015–2017. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality as well as the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or heart transplant/ventricular assist device implantation (transplant/VAD free survival) were assessed. Results For the primary analysis, 253 patients (mean age 61.2±13.0 years, 82.6% male) were included. 68 patients showed an LVEF between 40 and 49% (HFmrEF) whereas 185 patients had an LVEF of below 40% (HFrEF). HF etiology was in 31.3% ischemic. Mean BNP values were 788±1061 pg/ml while HFmrEF patients had on average lower values than HFrEF (322±676 vs. 945±1121, p<0.001). Patients were followed up for a median of 4.2 years (IQR: 3.5–5.0 years). Over this period, the primary and secondary end-point occurred in 22.5%/30.8% of patients. Patients in the HFmrEF group showed a higher mean peak oxygen uptake compared to HFrEF (pVO2; 17.3±4.6 vs 14.2±3.7 ml/min/kg, p<0.001), peak exercise power (Pmax; 111±49 vs 91±38 Watt, p=0.02) and peak oxygen pulse (pO2/HR; 12.6±4.2 vs 10.4±4.1 ml/min/kg, p<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier-Estimate showed a significant difference in survival for both HFmrEF and HFrEF who had pVO2 below 14 ml/min/kg (Log Rank: Chi2: 4.45, p=0.035 and Chi2: 10.05, p=0.02). In univariate Cox regression, pVO2 was predictive of the primary endpoint (HR per +1 mL/kg/min: 0.81; CI: 0.71–0.93; p=0.002 and HR per +1 mL/kg/min: 0.84; CI: 0.77–0.92; p<0.001) in both groups as was Pmax and pO2/HR (p<0.05 for both variables in both groups). Conclusion As in HFrEF, CPET is a useful tool to stratify risk in HFmrEF as well. Our findings support the prognostic role of pVO2 as well as pO2/HR and Pmax in HF with mid-range LVEF. Using a cut off of pVO2 14 ml/min/kg selected patients at risk with similar long-term prognosis as in the HFrEF cohort. Further research to identify subgroups at risk within the heterogeneous group of HFmrEF is warranted for optimal risk stratification. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document