Cardiac output changes during exercise in heart failure patients: focus on mid-exercise

Assessment of the cardiac output at rest and during exercise stress using real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in HFpEF-patients

This methodological study aimed to validate the cardiac output (CO) measured by exercise-stress real-time phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). 68 patients with dyspnea on exertion (NYHA ≥ II) and echocardiographic signs of diastolic dysfunction underwent rest and exercise stress right heart catheterization (RHC) and CMR within 24 h. Patients were diagnosed as overt HFpEF (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥ 15mmHg at rest), masked HFpEF (PCWP ≥ 25mmHg during exercise stress but < 15mmHg at rest) and non-cardiac dyspnea. CO was calculated using RHC as the reference standard, and in CMR by the volumetric stroke volume, conventional phase-contrast and rest and stress real-time phase-contrast imaging. At rest, the CMR based CO showed good agreement with RHC with an ICC of 0.772 for conventional phase-contrast, and 0.872 for real-time phase-contrast measurements. During exercise stress, the agreement of real-time CMR and RHC was good with an ICC of 0.805. Real-time measurements underestimated the CO at rest (Bias:0.71 L/min) and during exercise stress (Bias:1.4 L/min). Patients with overt HFpEF had a significantly lower cardiac index compared to patients with masked HFpEF and with non-cardiac dyspnea during exercise stress, but not at rest. Real-time phase-contrast CO can be assessed with good agreement with the invasive reference standard at rest and during exercise stress. While moderate underestimation of the CO needs to be considered with non-invasive testing, the CO using real-time CMR provides useful clinical information and could help to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures in HFpEF patients.

Non-Invasive Cardiac Output Measurement Using Inert Gas Rebreathing Method during Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The use of inert gas rebreathing for the non-invasive cardiac output measurement has produced measurements comparable to those obtained by various other methods. However, there are no guidelines for the inert gas rebreathing method during a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). In addition, there is also a lack of specific standards for assessing the non-invasive measurement of cardiac output during CPET, both for healthy patients and those suffering from diseases and conditions.

AIM

This systematic review aims to describe the use of IGR for a non-invasive assessment of cardiac output during cardiopulmonary exercise testing and, based on the information extracted, to identify a proposed CPET report that includes an assessment of the cardiac output using the IGR method.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception until 29 December 2022. The primary search returned 261 articles, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a comprehensive description of protocols, indications, technical details, and proposed reporting standards for a non-invasive cardiac output assessment using IGR during CPET. It highlights the need for standardized approaches to CPET and identifies gaps in the literature. The review critically analyzes the strengths and limitations of the studies included and offers recommendations for future research by proposing a combined report from CPET-IGR along with its clinical application.

Beyond VO2: the complex cardiopulmonary exercise test

Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is a valuable diagnostic tool with a specific application in heart failure (HF) thanks to the strong prognostic value of its parameters. The most important value provided by CPET is the peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), the maximum rate of oxygen consumption attainable during physical exertion. According to the Fick principle, VO2 equals cardiac output (Qc) times the arteriovenous content difference [C(a-v)O2], where Ca is the arterial oxygen and Cv is the mixed venous oxygen content, respectively; therefore, VO2 can be reduced both by impaired O2 delivery (reduced Qc) or extraction (reduced arteriovenous O2 content). However, standard CPET is not capable of discriminating between these different impairments, leading to the need for 'complex' CPET technologies. Among non-invasive methods for Qc measurement during CPET, inert gas rebreathing and thoracic impedance cardiography are the most used techniques, both validated in healthy subjects and patients with HF, at rest and during exercise. On the other hand, the non-invasive assessment of peripheral muscle perfusion is possible with the application of near-infrared spectroscopy, capable of measuring tissue oxygenation. Measuring Qc allows, by having haemoglobin values available, to discriminate how much any VO2 deficit depends on the muscle, anaemia or heart.

Exertional dyspnea responses to the Dyspnea Challenge in heart failure: Comparison to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

In heart failure (HF), exertional dyspnea is a common symptom, but validated field-based tests for its measurement are limited. The Dyspnea Challenge is a two-minute uphill treadmill walk designed to measure exertional dyspnea in cardiopulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to establish the test-retest reliability of the Dyspnea Challenge in HF and to compare the exercise responses to a group with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

The study was an experimental, single-blind, randomized, multi-site project that recruited individuals with HF (New York Heart Association I-III) and COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease II-IV). Participants completed two visits. On the first visit, participants performed two six-minute walk tests (6MWT), followed by two to three Dyspnea Challenges to calculate treadmill speed and gradient. At Visit Two, participants performed two separate Dyspnea Challenges, with one including measures of pulmonary gas exchange and central hemodynamics.

RESULTS

Twenty-one individuals with HF (10 female; 66±11years; ejection fraction:45.3 ± 6.1%; six-minute distance(6MWD) 520 ± 97 m), and 25 COPD (11 female; 68 ± 10 yr; forced expiratory volume in 1 s:47.6 ± 11.5%; 6MWD: 430 ± 101 m). Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for HF (0.94, P<.01) and COPD (0.95, P<.01). While achieving similar end-exercise exertional dyspnea intensities (P=.60), the HF group walked at a higher average speed (4.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.5 ± 0.8km·h^-1) and gradient (10.3 ± 2.8 vs. 9.6 ± 2.8%) and a greater oxygen uptake (P<.01) and ventilation (P<.01) than those with COPD. While achieving similar cardiac outputs (P=.98), stroke volumes (P=.97), and heart rates (P=.83), those with HF displayed a larger arteriovenous oxygen difference (P<.01), while those with COPD exhibited greater decreases in inspiratory capacity (P=.03), arterial oxygen saturation (P=.02), and breathing reserve (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The Dyspnea Challenge is a reliable test-retest measure of exertional dyspnea in HF. Typical to their pathologies, HF seemed limited by an inadequate modulation of cardiac output, while ventilatory constraints hampered those with COPD.