Prognostic Value of a New Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Parameter in Chronic Heart Failure: Oxygen Uptake Efficiency at Peak Exercise - Comparison with Oxygen Uptake Efficiency Slope

INTRODUCTION: A growing body of evidence shows the prognostic value of oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) parameter derived from the logarithmic relationship between O(2) consumption (VO(2)) and minute ventilation (VE) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of a new CPET parameter - peak oxygen uptake efficiency (POUE) - and to compare it with OUES in patients with CHF. METHODS: We prospectively studied 206 consecutive patients with stable CHF due to dilated cardiomyopathy - 153 male, aged 53.3±13.0 years, 35.4% of ischemic etiology, left ventricular ejection fraction 27.7±8.0%, 81.1% in sinus rhythm, 97.1% receiving ACE-Is or ARBs, 78.2% beta-blockers and 60.2% spironolactone - who performed a first maximal symptom-limited treadmill CPET, using the modified Bruce protocol. In 33% of patients an cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT-D) was implanted during follow-up. Peak VO(2), percentage of predicted peak VO(2), VE/VCO(2) slope, OUES and POUE were analyzed. OUES was calculated using the formula VO(2) (l/min) = OUES (log(10)VE) + b. POUE was calculated as pVO(2) (l/min) / log(10)peakVE (l/min). Correlation coefficients between the studied parameters were obtained. The prognosis of each variable adjusted for age was evaluated through Cox proportional hazard models and R2 percent (R2%) and V index (V6) were used as measures of the predictive accuracy of events of each of these variables. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from logistic regression models were used to determine the cut-offs for OUES and POUE. RESULTS: pVO(2): 20.5±5.9; percentage of predicted peak VO(2): 68.6±18.2; VE/VCO(2) slope: 30.6±8.3; OUES: 1.85±0.61; POUE: 0.88±0.27. During a mean follow-up of 33.1±14.8 months, 45 (21.8%) patients died, 10 (4.9%) underwent urgent heart transplantation and in three patients (1.5%) a left ventricular assist device was implanted. All variables proved to be independent predictors of this combined event; however, VE/VCO2 slope was most strongly associated with events (HR 11.14). In this population, POUE was associated with a higher risk of events than OUES (HR 9.61 vs. 7.01), and was also a better predictor of events (R2: 28.91 vs. 22.37). CONCLUSION: POUE was more strongly associated with death, urgent heart transplantation and implantation of a left ventricular assist device and proved to be a better predictor of events than OUES. These results suggest that this new parameter can increase the prognostic value of CPET in patients with CHF.

Percutaneous Treatment of Mitral Valve Regurgitation: Initial Experience with the MitraClip Device

INTRODUCTION: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most common valvular disease and has recently become the target of a number of percutaneous approaches. The MitraClip is virtually the only device for which there is considerable experience, with more than 20,000 procedures performed worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe our initial experience of the percutaneous treatment of MR with the MitraClip device. METHODS: We describe the first six MitraClip cases performed in this institution (mean age 58.5 ± 13.1 years), with functional MR grade 4+ and New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure class III or IV (n=3), with a mean follow-up of 290 ± 145 days. RESULTS: Procedural success (MR ≤ 2+) was 100%. Total procedure time was 115.8 ± 23.7 min, with no in-hospital adverse events and discharge between the fourth and eighth day, and consistent improvement in the six-minute walk test (329.8 ± 98.42 vs. 385.33 ± 106.95 m) and in NYHA class (three patients improved by two NYHA classes). During follow-up there were two deaths, in two of the four patients who had been initially considered for heart transplantation. CONCLUSION: In patients with functional MR the MitraClip procedure is safe, with both a high implantation and immediate in-hospital success rate. A longer follow-up suggests that the clinical benefit decreases or disappears completely in patients with more advanced heart disease, namely those denied transplantation or on the heart transplant waiting list.