Pick Your Threshold: A Comparison Among Different Methods of Anaerobic Threshold Evaluation in Heart Failure Prognostic Assessment.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
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, MECKI Score Research Group
Аннотация
RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prognostic power of these different ways to report AT?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.O2ATabs (mean ± SD, 823 ± 305 mL/min) and V.O2AT%peak_pred (mean ± SD, 39.6 ± 13.9%), but not V.O2AT%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.O2ATabs (0.680) and V.O2AT%peak_pred (0.688) performed similarly, whereas V.O2AT%peak_obs (0.538) was significantly weaker (P < .001). Moreover, the V.O2AT%peak_pred AUC value was the only one performing as well as the AUC based on peak V.O2 (0.710), with an even a higher AUC (0.637 vs 0.618, respectively) in the group with severe HF (peak V.O2 < 12 mL/min/kg). Finally, the combination of V.O2AT%peak_pred with peak V.O2 and V. per CO2 production shows the highest prognostic power.
INTERPRETATION: In HF, V.O2AT%peak_pred is the best way to report V.O2 at AT in relationship to prognosis, with a prognostic power comparable to that of peak V.O2 and, remarkably, in patients with severe HF.