Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Salvioni, Elisabetta
• Mapelli, Massimo
• Bonomi, Alice
• Magrì, Damiano
• Piepoli, Massimo
• Frigerio, Maria
• Paolillo, Stefania
• Corrà, Ugo
• Raimondo, Rosa
• Lagioia, Rocco
• Badagliacca, Roberto
• Filardi, Pasquale Perrone
• Senni, Michele
• Correale, Michele
• Cicoira, Mariantonietta
• Perna, Enrico
• Metra, Marco
• Guazzi, Marco
• Limongelli, Giuseppe
• Sinagra, Gianfranco
• Parati, Gianfranco
• Cattadori, Gaia
• Bandera, Francesco
• Bussotti, Maurizio
• Re, Federica
• Vignati, Carlo
• Lombardi, Carlo
• Scardovi, Angela B
• Sciomer, Susanna
• Passantino, Andrea
• Emdin, Michele
• Passino, Claudio
• Santolamazza, Caterina
• Girola, Davide
• Zaffalon, Denise
• De Martino, Fabiana
• Agostoni, Piergiuseppe

Titel

Pick Your Threshold: A Comparison Among Different Methods of Anaerobic Threshold Evaluation in Heart Failure Prognostic Assessment

Ist Teil von

• Chest, 2022-11, Vol.162 (5), p.1106-1115

Ort / Verlag

United States

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• 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.O AT) has been reported as an absolute value (V.O ATabs), as a percentage of predicted peak V.O (V.O AT%peak_pred), or as a percentage of observed peak V.O (V.O AT%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.O ATabs (mean ± SD, 823 ± 305 mL/min) and V.O AT%peak_pred (mean ± SD, 39.6 ± 13.9%), but not V.O AT%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.O ATabs (0.680) and V.O AT%peak_pred (0.688) performed similarly, whereas V.O AT%peak_obs (0.538) was significantly weaker (P < .001). Moreover, the V.O AT%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.O AT%peak_pred with peak V.O and V. per CO production shows the highest prognostic power. In HF, V.O AT%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.