Heart failure unit, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCs, Milan, Italy.
Heart failure unit, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCs, Milan, Italy; Cardiovascular Section, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Milan, Italy.
Chest. 2022 Nov;162(5):1106-1115. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.05.039. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
In clinical practice, anaerobic threshold (AT) is used to guide training and rehabilitation programs, to define risk of major thoracic or abdominal surgery, and to assess prognosis in heart failure (HF). AT of oxygen uptake (V.O; V.OAT) has been reported as an absolute value (V.OATabs), as a percentage of predicted peak V.O (V.OAT%peak_pred), or as a percentage of observed peak V.O (V.OAT%peak_obs). A direct comparison of the prognostic power among these different ways to report AT is missing.
What is the prognostic power of these different ways to report AT?
In this observational cohort study, we screened data of 7,746 patients with HF with a history of reduced ejection fraction (< 40%) recruited between 1998 and 2020 and enrolled in the Metabolic Exercise Combined With Cardiac and Kidney Indexes register. All patients underwent a maximum cardiopulmonary exercise test, executed using a ramp protocol on an electronically braked cycle ergometer.
This study considered 6,157 patients with HF with identified AT. Follow-up was median, 4.2 years (25th-75th percentiles, 1.9-5.0 years). Both V.OATabs (mean ± SD, 823 ± 305 mL/min) and V.OAT%peak_pred (mean ± SD, 39.6 ± 13.9%), but not V.OAT%peak_obs (mean ± SD, 69.2 ± 17.7%), well stratified the population regarding prognosis (composite end point: cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, or left ventricular assist device). Comparing area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values, V.OATabs (0.680) and V.OAT%peak_pred (0.688) performed similarly, whereas V.OAT%peak_obs (0.538) was significantly weaker (P < .001). Moreover, the V.OAT%peak_pred AUC value was the only one performing as well as the AUC based on peak V.O (0.710), with an even a higher AUC (0.637 vs 0.618, respectively) in the group with severe HF (peak V.O < 12 mL/min/kg). Finally, the combination of V.OAT%peak_pred with peak V.O and V. per CO production shows the highest prognostic power.
In HF, V.OAT%peak_pred is the best way to report V.O at AT in relationship to prognosis, with a prognostic power comparable to that of peak V.O and, remarkably, in patients with severe HF.
在临床实践中,无氧阈 (AT) 用于指导训练和康复计划,定义进行大胸或大腹手术的风险,并评估心力衰竭 (HF) 的预后。氧摄取量 (V.O; V.OAT) 的 AT 曾以绝对值 (V.OATabs)、预测峰值 V.O 的百分比 (V.OAT%peak_pred) 或观察到的峰值 V.O 的百分比 (V.OAT%peak_obs) 报告。目前还缺乏这些不同报告 AT 方法之间预后能力的直接比较。
这些不同报告 AT 方法的预后能力如何?
在这项观察性队列研究中,我们筛选了 1998 年至 2020 年间招募的 7746 名射血分数降低(<40%)HF 病史患者的数据,并将其纳入代谢运动联合心脏和肾脏指数登记处。所有患者均接受了最大心肺运动测试,使用电子制动自行车测功计进行斜坡方案。
本研究考虑了 6157 名 HF 患者,其 AT 得到明确识别。中位随访时间为 4.2 年(25%至 75%,1.9-5.0 年)。V.OATabs(平均值 ± 标准差,823 ± 305 mL/min)和 V.OAT%peak_pred(平均值 ± 标准差,39.6 ± 13.9%)均能很好地分层预后(复合终点:心血管死亡、紧急心脏移植或左心室辅助装置),但 V.OAT%peak_obs(平均值 ± 标准差,69.2 ± 17.7%)则不然。比较接受者操作特征曲线(ROC)下面积(AUC)值,V.OATabs(0.680)和 V.OAT%peak_pred(0.688)的表现相似,而 V.OAT%peak_obs(0.538)则明显较弱(P <.001)。此外,V.OAT%peak_pred AUC 值的表现与基于峰值 V.O 的 AUC 值(0.710)相当,在严重 HF 组(峰值 V.O < 12 mL/min/kg)中,甚至更高(0.637 与 0.618,分别)。最后,V.OAT%peak_pred 与峰值 V.O 和 V. per CO 产量的组合显示出最高的预后能力。
在 HF 中,V.OAT%peak_pred 是报告与预后相关的 AT 时 V.O 的最佳方法,其预后能力与峰值 V.O 相当,且在严重 HF 患者中尤为显著。