Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2021
Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Improves Exercise Capacity Regardless of the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Misumi Kayo, Nakanishi Michio, Miura Hiroyuki, Date Ayumi, Tokeshi Tatsuo, Kumasaka Leon, Arakawa Tetsuo, Nakao Kazuhiro, Hasegawa Takuya, Fukui Shigefumi, Yanase Masanobu, Noguchi Teruo, Kusano Kengo, Yasuda Satoshi, Goto Yoichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ECR) enhances exercise capacity. This study examined the relationship between the 2 responses.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-four consecutive HFrEF patients who participated in a 3-month ECR program after CRT were investigated. Patients were categorized according to a median improvement in peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) after ECR of 7% as either good (n=32; mean percentage change in PV̇O2[%∆PV̇O2]=23.2%) or poor (n=32; mean %∆PV̇O2=2.5%) responders. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the good and poor responders, except for PV̇O2(51% vs. 59%, respectively; P=0.01). The proportion of good CRT responders was similar between the good and poor responders (%∆LVEF ≥10%; 53% vs. 47%, respectively; P=NS). Overall, there was no significant correlation between %∆LVEF after CRT and %∆PV̇O2after ECR. Notably, among poor CRT responders (n=32), the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (0% vs. 29%; P<0.03) and baseline PV̇O2(48% vs. 57%; P<0.05) were significantly lower among those with a good (n=15) than poor (n=17) response to ECR.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, good ECR and CRT responses are unrelated. A good PV̇O2response to ECR can be achieved even in poor CRT responders, particularly in those with a sinus rhythm or low baseline PV̇O2.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-four consecutive HFrEF patients who participated in a 3-month ECR program after CRT were investigated. Patients were categorized according to a median improvement in peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) after ECR of 7% as either good (n=32; mean percentage change in PV̇O2[%∆PV̇O2]=23.2%) or poor (n=32; mean %∆PV̇O2=2.5%) responders. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the good and poor responders, except for PV̇O2(51% vs. 59%, respectively; P=0.01). The proportion of good CRT responders was similar between the good and poor responders (%∆LVEF ≥10%; 53% vs. 47%, respectively; P=NS). Overall, there was no significant correlation between %∆LVEF after CRT and %∆PV̇O2after ECR. Notably, among poor CRT responders (n=32), the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (0% vs. 29%; P<0.03) and baseline PV̇O2(48% vs. 57%; P<0.05) were significantly lower among those with a good (n=15) than poor (n=17) response to ECR.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, good ECR and CRT responses are unrelated. A good PV̇O2response to ECR can be achieved even in poor CRT responders, particularly in those with a sinus rhythm or low baseline PV̇O2.