Cornelis Justien, Beckers Paul, Vanroy Christel, Volckaerts Tess, Vrints Christiaan, Vissers Dirk
University of Antwerp (Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences), Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Universiteitsplein 1, CDE S0.22, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.
University of Antwerp (Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences), Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Universiteitsplein 1, CDE S0.22, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium; Antwerp University Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium; University of Antwerp (Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences), Department of Medicine, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.
Int J Cardiol. 2015;190:161-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.04.111. Epub 2015 Apr 15.
The variable "exercise oscillatory ventilation" (EOV), assessed during cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), recently became a fundamental prognostic parameter in patients with heart failure. In literature, various definitions are suggested, but an uniformly accepted description to identify EOV still lacks. We performed a systematic review of the literature in order to determine the different definitions and diagnostic techniques to assess EOV. A systematic search strategy was established and executed in seven databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Clinical Trials, Science Direct, Pedro, Web Of Science library and Medline (Ovid)) resulting in 605 citations after de-duplication. Full-text articles (n=124) were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 75 citations. The review accounted 17,440 patients of whom 4,638 subjects presented EOV. Seven studies described EOV in a non-heart failure population accounting 168 EOV subjects. The definitions could be categorized in nine subdivisions of which four (n=43) referred to an original description. The other subdivisions were combinations of the original definitions (n=11), quantifications (n=4), computational (n=3), vaguely described (n=8) or not defined (n=6). Symptom limited maximal exercise tests were conducted to assess EOV, however the modes, protocols, software and data sampling were divers. Heterogeneity in the numerous definitions to identify EOV and the vaguely described assessment methods are hindering the evolution to a standardized uniformly accepted definition and technique to identify this abnormal breathing pattern. Unity in definition and international adopted assessment is warranted to strengthen its validity as a prognostic marker and could promote communication. It may facilitate clinical trials on pathophysiology and origin of EOV.
在心肺运动试验(CPET)期间评估的“运动振荡通气”(EOV)变量,最近成为心力衰竭患者的一个重要预后参数。在文献中,提出了各种定义,但仍缺乏一个统一接受的用于识别EOV的描述。我们对文献进行了系统综述,以确定评估EOV的不同定义和诊断技术。制定并在七个数据库(PubMed、谷歌学术、Cochrane临床试验、科学Direct、Pedro、科学网图书馆和Medline(Ovid))中执行了系统检索策略,去重后得到605条引用。对全文文章(n = 124)进行了资格评估,得到75条引用。该综述纳入了17440例患者,其中4638例出现EOV。七项研究在非心力衰竭人群中描述了EOV,涉及168例出现EOV的受试者。这些定义可分为九个细分类型,其中四个(n = 43)参考了原始描述。其他细分类型是原始定义的组合(n = 11)、量化(n = 4)、计算(n = 3)、描述模糊(n = 8)或未定义(n = 6)。进行了症状限制的最大运动试验来评估EOV,然而其模式、方案、软件和数据采样各不相同。识别EOV的众多定义中的异质性以及描述模糊的评估方法阻碍了向标准化统一接受的定义和技术发展以识别这种异常呼吸模式。定义的统一和国际采用的评估对于加强其作为预后标志物的有效性是必要的,并且可以促进交流。这可能有助于关于EOV病理生理学和起源的临床试验。