TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparisons of Noninvasive Methods Used to Assess Exercise Stroke Volume in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
AU - Van Iterson, Erik H.
AU - Olson, Thomas P.
AU - Borlaug, Barry A.
AU - Johnson, Bruce D.
AU - Snyder, Eric M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank the participants who volunteered for this research. Funding for this work was supported by AHA 16POST30260021 (E. H. V.), NIH RO1-HL126638 (T. P. O.), R01-HL071478 (B. D. J.), and R01-HL108962 (E. M. S.). Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by ACSM. The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.
PY - 2017/9/1
Y1 - 2017/9/1
N2 - Introduction Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) plays an important role in properly phenotyping signs and symptoms of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The prognostic value of CPET is strengthened when accompanied by cardiac hemodynamic measurements. Although recognized as the "gold" standard, cardiac catheterization is impractical for routine CPET. Thus, advancing the scientific/methodologic understanding of noninvasive techniques for exercise cardiac hemodynamic assessment is clinically impactful in HFpEF. This study tested the concurrent validity of noninvasive acetylene gas (C2H2) uptake, echocardiography (ECHO), and oxygen pulse (O2pulse) for measuring/predicting exercise stroke volume (SV) in HFpEF. Methods Eighteen white HFpEF and 18 age-/sex-matched healthy controls participated in upright CPET (ages, 69 ± 9 yr vs 63 ± 9 yr). At rest, 20 W, and peak exercise, SV was measured at steady-state via C2H2 rebreathe (SVACET) and ECHO (SVECHO), whereas O2pulse was derived (=VO2/HR). Results Resting relationships between SVACET and SVECHO, SVECHO and O2pulse, or SVACET and O2pulse were significant in HFpEF (R2 = 0.30, 0.36, 0.67), but not controls (R2 = 0.07, 0.01, 0.09), respectively. Resting relationships persisted to 20 W in HFpEF (R2 = 0.70, 0.53, 0.70) and controls (R2 = 0.05, 0.07, 0.21), respectively. Peak exercise relationships were significant in HFpEF (R2 = 0.62, 0.24, 0.64), but only for SVACET versus O2pulse in controls (R2 = 0.07, 0.04, 0.33), respectively. Standardized standard error of estimate between techniques was strongest in HFpEF at 20 W: SVACET versus SVECHO = 0.57 ± 0.22; SVECHO versus O2pulse = 0.71 ± 0.28; SVACET versus O2pulse = 0.56 ± 0.22. Conclusions Constituting a clinically impactful step towards construct validation testing, these data suggest SVACET, SVECHO, and O2pulse demonstrate moderate-to-strong concurrent validity for measuring/predicting exercise SV in HFpEF.
AB - Introduction Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) plays an important role in properly phenotyping signs and symptoms of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The prognostic value of CPET is strengthened when accompanied by cardiac hemodynamic measurements. Although recognized as the "gold" standard, cardiac catheterization is impractical for routine CPET. Thus, advancing the scientific/methodologic understanding of noninvasive techniques for exercise cardiac hemodynamic assessment is clinically impactful in HFpEF. This study tested the concurrent validity of noninvasive acetylene gas (C2H2) uptake, echocardiography (ECHO), and oxygen pulse (O2pulse) for measuring/predicting exercise stroke volume (SV) in HFpEF. Methods Eighteen white HFpEF and 18 age-/sex-matched healthy controls participated in upright CPET (ages, 69 ± 9 yr vs 63 ± 9 yr). At rest, 20 W, and peak exercise, SV was measured at steady-state via C2H2 rebreathe (SVACET) and ECHO (SVECHO), whereas O2pulse was derived (=VO2/HR). Results Resting relationships between SVACET and SVECHO, SVECHO and O2pulse, or SVACET and O2pulse were significant in HFpEF (R2 = 0.30, 0.36, 0.67), but not controls (R2 = 0.07, 0.01, 0.09), respectively. Resting relationships persisted to 20 W in HFpEF (R2 = 0.70, 0.53, 0.70) and controls (R2 = 0.05, 0.07, 0.21), respectively. Peak exercise relationships were significant in HFpEF (R2 = 0.62, 0.24, 0.64), but only for SVACET versus O2pulse in controls (R2 = 0.07, 0.04, 0.33), respectively. Standardized standard error of estimate between techniques was strongest in HFpEF at 20 W: SVACET versus SVECHO = 0.57 ± 0.22; SVECHO versus O2pulse = 0.71 ± 0.28; SVACET versus O2pulse = 0.56 ± 0.22. Conclusions Constituting a clinically impactful step towards construct validation testing, these data suggest SVACET, SVECHO, and O2pulse demonstrate moderate-to-strong concurrent validity for measuring/predicting exercise SV in HFpEF.
KW - CARDIAC OUTPUT
KW - CPET
KW - ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY
KW - HEART FAILURE WITH PRESERVED EJECTION FRACTION
KW - INERT GAS BREATHING
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032255602&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032255602&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001308
DO - 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001308
M3 - Article
C2 - 28471812
AN - SCOPUS:85032255602
SN - 0195-9131
VL - 49
SP - 1758
EP - 1768
JO - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
JF - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
IS - 9
ER -