Van Iterson Erik H, Olson Thomas P, Borlaug Barry A, Johnson Bruce D, Snyder Eric M
1Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and 2Department of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Sep;49(9):1758-1768. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001308.
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.
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 (=V˙O2/HR).
Resting relationships between SVACET and SVECHO, SVECHO and O2pulse, or SVACET and O2pulse were significant in HFpEF (R = 0.30, 0.36, 0.67), but not controls (R = 0.07, 0.01, 0.09), respectively. Resting relationships persisted to 20 W in HFpEF (R = 0.70, 0.53, 0.70) and controls (R = 0.05, 0.07, 0.21), respectively. Peak exercise relationships were significant in HFpEF (R = 0.62, 0.24, 0.64), but only for SVACET versus O2pulse in controls (R = 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.
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.
心肺运动试验(CPET)在准确界定射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)的体征和症状方面发挥着重要作用。当结合心脏血流动力学测量时,CPET的预后价值会得到增强。尽管心脏导管检查被公认为“金”标准,但对于常规CPET来说并不实用。因此,加深对运动心脏血流动力学评估无创技术的科学/方法学理解对HFpEF具有临床意义。本研究测试了无创乙炔气体(C2H2)摄取、超声心动图(ECHO)和氧脉搏(O2pulse)在测量/预测HFpEF运动每搏输出量(SV)方面的同时效度。
18名白人HFpEF患者和18名年龄/性别匹配的健康对照者参与了直立CPET(年龄分别为69±9岁和63±9岁)。在静息、20W负荷和运动峰值时,通过C2H2再呼吸(SVACET)和ECHO(SVECHO)在稳态下测量SV,而氧脉搏通过计算得出(=V˙O2/HR)。
在HFpEF患者中,SVACET与SVECHO、SVECHO与O2pulse或SVACET与O2pulse之间的静息关系显著(R = 0.30、0.36、0.67),但在对照组中不显著(R = 0.07、0.01、0.09)。在HFpEF患者中,静息关系持续到20W负荷时(R = 0.70、0.53、0.70),在对照组中也持续存在(R = 0.05、0.07、0.21)。运动峰值时的关系在HFpEF患者中显著(R = 0.62、0.24、0.64),但在对照组中仅SVACET与O2pulse之间显著(R = 0.07、0.04、0.33)。在20W负荷时,HFpEF患者中各技术之间的标准化估计标准误差最强:SVACET与SVECHO = 0.57±0.22;SVECHO与O2pulse = 0.71±0.28;SVACET与O2pulse = 0.56±0.22。
这些数据表明,SVACET、SVECHO和O2pulse在测量/预测HFpEF运动SV方面具有中度至高度的同时效度,这是朝着构建效度测试迈出的具有临床意义的一步。