Abstract
Aims
Ventilation vs. carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) is among the strongest cardiopulmonary exercise testing prognostic parameters in heart failure (HF). It is usually reported as an absolute value. The current definition of normal VE/VCO2 slope values is inadequate, since it was built from small groups of subjects with a particularly limited number of women and elderly. We aimed to define VE/VCO2 slope prediction formulas in a sizable population and to test whether the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope in HF was different if expressed as a percentage of the predicted value or as an absolute value.
Methods and results
We calculated the linear regressions between age and VE/VCO2 slope in 1136 healthy subjects (68% male, age 44.9 ± 14.5, range 13–83 years). We then applied age‐adjusted and sex‐adjusted formulas to predict VE/VCO2 slope to HF patients included in the metabolic exercise test data combined with cardiac and kidney indexes score database, which counts 6112 patients (82% male, age 61.4 ± 12.8, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.2 ± 10.5%, peakVO2 14.8 ± 4.9, mL/min/kg, VE/VCO2 slope 32.7 ± 7.7) from 24 HF centres. Finally, we evaluated whether the use of absolute values vs. percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 affected HF prognosis prediction (composite of cardiovascular mortality + urgent transplant or left ventricular assist device). We did so in the entire cardiac and kidney indexes score population and separately in HF patients with severe (peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg, n = 2919, 61.1 events/1000 pts/year) or moderate (peakVO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg, n = 3183, 19.9 events/1000 pts/year) HF. In the healthy population, we obtained the following equations: female, VE/VCO2 = 0.052 × Age + 23.808 (r = 0.192); male, VE/VCO2 = 0.095 × Age + 20.227 (r = 0.371) (P = 0.007). We applied these formulas to calculate the percentages of predicted VE/VCO2 values. The 2‐year survival prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope was strong, and it was similar if expressed as absolute value or as a percentage of predicted value (AUCs 0.686 and 0.690, respectively). In contrast, in severe HF patients, AUCs significantly differed between absolute values (0.637) and percentages of predicted values (0.650, P = 0.0026). Moreover, VE/VCO2 slope expressed as a percentage of predicted value allowed to reclassify 6.6% of peakVO2 < 14 mL/min/kg patients (net reclassification improvement = 0.066, P = 0.0015).
Conclusions
The percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 slope value strengthens the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 in severe HF patients, and it should be preferred over the absolute value for HF prognostication. Furthermore, the widespread use of VE/VCO2 slope expressed as percentage of predicted value can improve our ability to identify HF patients at high risk, which is a goal of utmost clinical relevance.
Keywords: Cardiopulmonary exercise test, Prognosis, Ventilation efficiency, Heart failure
Introduction
In spite of new treatments and updated clinical management, heart failure (HF) is still characterized by high rates of mortality and morbidity.1 Therefore, refining prognostic stratification in HF is of utmost importance to guide patients' clinical management strategy.
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a strongly established tool to assess functional status and prognosis in HF, so that its use is recommended to identify patients at high risk and those eligible for heart transplant.2, 3, 4, 5 Among the bulk of variables provided by CPET, the most useful parameters widely recognized to assess prognosis are oxygen consumption at peak exercise (peak VO2) and ventilatory efficiency assessed through the measurement of the slope of the relationship between minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2).6, 7 Peak VO2, proposed since 1985,8 has long been considered the gold standard for assessing HF severity and prognosis through CPET; however, an important prognostic role has been more recently reported also for VE/VCO2. 6, 9 Indeed, VE/VCO2 slope has been proven strongly associated with pulmonary and cardiac function and with pulmonary haemodynamics and prognosis.9, 10, 11
Peak VO2 data are reported either as absolute values or as percentages of a normal predicted value. The latter is nowadays preferred in the general HF population for HF prognosis,10, 12 although heart transplant guidelines use an absolute/kg peak VO2 value as a cut‐off.5 Several studies have been performed to build peak VO2 predicted values.12, 13, 14 At present, the most frequently applied peak VO2 prediction formulas are those by Hansen et al.14 and Jones et al.15 In contrast, data are less defined with respect to VE/VCO2. A cut‐off value of 34 was proposed a few years ago, and it is still currently used to discriminate patients at high risk of mortality.6, 16, 17 However, the use of a unique, non‐gender‐specific, absolute value might nowadays not be applicable to all age groups of patients. Only a few studies, with a limited number of subjects, have been conducted to better define VE/VCO2 slope characteristics across the normal population.18, 19, 20, 21 Those studies reported higher values in females than in males and a positive correlation between VE/VCO2 slope and age, but an accepted formula for a VE/VCO2 slope predicted value is still lacking.
Accordingly, aims of the present study were to define normal values of VE/VCO2 slope in a large population of healthy subjects and to test whether the prognostic role of VE/VCO2 slope in the HF population would be different if expressed as percentage of predicted value, as calculated by these equations, or as absolute value.
Methods
Population
In the first part of the project, we assessed CPET data obtained in nine of our laboratories over the last 20 years (1998–2018). The population was represented by 1136 healthy subjects of either gender, aged between 13 and 83 years. All available maximal tests in healthy subjects were included.
We calculated the linear regression between age and VE/VCO2 relationship slope, in the entire population, and separately for males and females.
In the second part of the study, the equations derived from the healthy population were applied to the metabolix exercise combined with cardiac and kidney indexes (MECKI) score HF population, which includes 6112 HF patients enrolled between 1993 and 2015 and followed in 23 Italian HF centres.22 The MECKI score registry inclusion/exclusion criteria and patient follow‐up methodology have been reported elsewhere in detail.10 In brief, inclusion criteria of MECKI score patients were previous or present HF symptoms and former documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, unchanged HF medications for at least 3 months, ability to perform a CPET, and no major treatment or intervention scheduled. Exclusion criteria were history of pulmonary embolism, moderate‐to‐severe aortic or mitral stenosis, pericardial disease, severe obstructive lung disease, exercise‐induced angina, and significant ECG alterations, or presence of any clinical comorbidity interfering with exercise performance. Patient follow‐up was performed according to each centre's protocol.
We calculated the percentage of the predicted value of VE/VCO2 slope in the 6112 HF patients, using, as referral, the equations found in the healthy population for males and females. The prognostic significance of VE/VCO2 slope expressed as absolute value was then compared with the percentage of predicted value. Following the MECKI score criteria,10 prognosis was assessed as the composite of cardiovascular mortality + urgent transplant or left ventricular assist device implant.
The present research protocol complies with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the Ethical Committee of Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS (CCM‐127).
Cardiopulmonary exercise test
All healthy subjects performed a progressive incremental ramp protocol using an electronically braked cycle ergometer. In the MECKI score registry, CPET was performed and reported according to standard criteria.23 Specifically, the majority of HF patients (94%, n = 5768) performed CPET using a ramp protocol on an electronically braked cycle ergometer, while the remaining (6%, n = 344) performed CPET on a treadmill with a modified Bruce protocol. Both in HF patients and in healthy subjects, the cycle ergometer CPET protocol was set to reach peak exercise in ~10 min, but tests were stopped as subjects reported maximal effort.24 Peak VO2 was calculated as the 20 s average of the highest recorded VO2, while VE/VCO2 slope was calculated as the slope of the linear relationship between VE and VCO2 from 1 min after the beginning of loaded exercise to the end of the isocapnic buffering period. Peak VO2 predicted value percentage was calculated according to Hansen et al.14 Peak exercise respiratory exchange ratio was measured as VCO2/VO2.
Results
The population of the present study was made up of 1136 healthy subjects (773 male, 68%) and 6112 patients with HF (5001 male, 82%). Characteristics of the healthy subjects and results of CPETs are reported in Table 1. No differences were found in terms of age between genders; VO2 was significantly higher in males (P < 0.001 for absolute values), and VE/VCO2 slope was higher in females (P < 0.001).
Table 1.
Characteristics of the healthy subjects
| Total population (1136) | Male (773) | Female (363) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 44.9 ± 14.5 | 45.2 ± 14.6 | 44.4 ± 14.3 | ns |
| Weight (kg) | 72.5 ± 13.8 | 78.2 ± 11.6 | 60.3 ± 9.6 | <0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 172.6 ± 10.3 | 176.4 ± 9.4 | 164.5 ± 6.9 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min) | 2287 ± 799 | 2636 ± 709 | 1550 ± 355 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min/kg) | 31.7 ± 9.8 | 34.2 ± 10.0 | 26.2 ± 6.5 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (% of predicted) | 94.4 ± 22.2 | 84.2 ± 24.1 | 92.6 ± 18.5 | 0.035 |
| VE/VCO2 slope | 25.0 ± 3.8 | 24.5 ± 3.7 | 26.1 ± 3.9 | <0.001 |
| Workload (watt) | 175 ± 74 | 203 ± 70 | 115 ± 36 | <0.001 |
| Peak RER | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | ns |
| Peak VE (L/min) | 74.9 ± 25.5 | 84.2 ± 24.1 | 55.3 ± 15.1 | <0.001 |
| Peak HR (bpm) | 157 ± 22 | 158 ± 22 | 156 ± 21 | ns |
Peak VO2, oxygen uptake at peak exercise; VE/VCO2 slope, ventilatory efficiency by means of CO2 production/ventilation relationship; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; VE, ventilation; HR, heart rate.
HF patients' characteristics are reported in Table 2 for the entire population and for either gender separately. Treatment included ACE inhibitors in 75% of cases, angiotensin receptor blockers in 19%, beta‐blockers in 87%, diuretics in 80%, and mineralcorticoid receptor antagonists in 52%.2
Table 2.
Characteristics of the heart failure patients
| Total population (6112) | Male (5001) | Female (1111) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 61.4 ± 12.8 | 61.3 ± 12.6 | 61.7 ± 13.5 | ns |
| Height (cm) | 169.8 ± 8.3 | 171.8 ± 7.2 | 161.1 ± 7.2 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 77.4 ± 14.7 | 79.7 ± 13.9 | 67.1 ± 13.5 | <0.001 |
| NYHA I n (%) | 919 (15%) | 805 (16%) | 114 (10%) | <0.001 |
| NYHA II n (%) | 3455 (57%) | 2792 (56%) | 664 (60%) | |
| NYHA III n (%) | 1660 (27%) | 1337 (23%) | 322 (29%) | |
| NYHA IV n (%) | 75 (1%) | 65 (1%) | 10 (1%) | |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min) | 1148 ± 433 | 1209 ± 435 | 874 ± 287 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min/kg) | 14.8 ± 4.9 | 15.2 ± 4.9 | 13.2 ± 4.2 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (% of predicted) | 56.0 ± 17.4 | 54.5 ± 16.9 | 62.8 ± 18.2 | <0.001 |
| VE/VCO2 slope | 32.8 ± 7.7 | 32.7 ± 7.7 | 33.2 ± 7.8 | 0.039 |
| VE/VCO2 slope (% pred) | 124.0 ± 30.7 | 121.7 ± 30.6 | 124.5 ± 30.6 | 0.007 |
| Workload (watt) | 83 ± 34 | 87 ± 35 | 63 ± 24 | <0.001 |
| Peak RER | 1.11 ± 0.12 | 1.12 ± 0.12 | 1.10 ± 0.13 | <0.001 |
| Peak VE (L/min) | 46.3 ± 14.7 | 48.5 ± 14.5 | 36.3 ± 11.3 | <0.001 |
| Peak HR (bpm) | 119 ± 25 | 120 ± 25 | 121 ± 26 | 0.04 |
| Periodic breathing n (%) | 1028 (17%) | 883 (18%) | 145 (13%) | <0.001 |
| LVEF (%) | 33.2 ± 10.5 | 32.4 ± 10.1 | 36.7 ± 11.6 | <0.001 |
| Haemoglobin (g/dL) | 13.5 ± 1.6 | 13.6 ± 1.6 | 12.7 ± 1.3 | <0.001 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 71.4 ± 23.9 | 72.3 ± 23.9 | 67.4 ± 23.6 | <0.001 |
| HR rest (bpm) | 71 ± 12 | 71 ± 13 | 72 ± 12 | 0.008 |
| BNP (ng/mL)a | 235 [91–631] | 261 [100–703] | 157 [78–409] | <0.001 |
| Idiopathic aetiology n (%) | 2399 (39%) | 1889 (38%) | 510 (46%) | <0.001 |
| Ischaemic aetiology n (%) | 2794 (46%) | 2518 (50%) | 276 (25%) | |
| Valvular aetiology n (%) | 272 (4%) | 177 (4%) | 95 (9%) | |
| ICD n (%) | 1905 (3%) | 1660 (33%) | 245 (22%) | <0.001 |
| CRT n (%) | 748 (12%) | 629 (13%) | 119 (11%) | 0.041 |
| Mortality rate (events/1000 pts/year) | 39.2 | 41.9 | 26.9 | 0.06 |
NYHA, New York Heart Association class; peak VO2, oxygen uptake at peak exercise; VE/VCO2 slope, ventilatory efficiency by means of CO2 production/ventilation relationship; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; VE, ventilation; HR, heart rate; eGFR, glomerular filtration rate estimated by modification of diet in renal disease formula; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; ICD, implantable cardiac defibrillator; CRT, cardio resynchronization therapy.
BNP value was available in 2774 cases.
In healthy individuals, a significant correlation between VE/VCO2 slope and age was found both in males and in females (P < 0.001). Linear regression between the VE/VCO2 slope of healthy subjects and their age is shown in Figure 1 for the total population (upper panel), in males (middle panel), and in females (lower panel). Specifically, the following regression equations were calculated: entire population predicted VE/VCO2 = 0.080 × Age + 21.413 (r = 0.303), female gender predicted VE/VCO2 = 0.052 × Age + 23.808 (r = 0.192), and male gender predicted VE/VCO2 = 0.095 × Age + 20.227 (r = 0.371). The male and female VE/VCO2 slope predictions resulted significantly different (P = 0.007).
Figure 1.
Linear regression between VE/VCO2 and age in the total population and according to gender. Equations describing the linear regression between VE/VCO2 and age in all healthy subjects (upper panel), in males (middle panel) and in females (lower panel) are reported.
The two gender‐specific equations were used to calculate the percentage of predicted values of VE/VCO2 in the HF population. Average VE/VCO2 slope and percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 values are reported in Table 2 for the entire population and for both genders.
HF patients were evaluated considering the entire HF population (n = 6112) or grouping patients according to HF severity based on peak VO2, using the cut‐off value of 14 mL/min/kg. Table 3 shows the differences between these groups.
Table 3.
Characteristics of patients according to heart failure severity
| VO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg (n = 3183) | VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg (n = 2919) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.0 ± 12.8 | 65.1 ± 11.6 | <0.001 |
| Gender (male) | 2768 (89%) | 2233 (76%) | <0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 170.8 ± 8.1 | 168.7 ± 8.4 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 77.5 ± 13.9 | 77.3 ± 15.5 | ns |
| NYHA I n (%) | 748 (23%) | 171 (5%) | <0.001 |
| NYHA II n (%) | 1908 (60%) | 1544 (53%) | |
| NYHA III n (%) | 506 (16%) | 1147 (39%) | |
| NYHA IV n (%) | 18 (1%) | 57 (2%) | |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min) | 1422 ± 391 | 851 ± 234 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (mL/min/kg) | 18.4 ± 4.0 | 11.0 ± 2.0 | <0.001 |
| Peak VO2 (% of predicted) | 66.0 ± 15.0 | 45.1 ± 12.7 | <0.001 |
| VE/VCO2 slope | 29.9 ± 5.6 | 35.9 ± 8.5 | <0.001 |
| VE/VCO2 slope (% of predicted) | 114.7 ± 23.6 | 134.1 ± 34.1 | <0.001 |
| Workload (watt) | 60.9 ± 25.1 | 40.7 ± 18.4 | <0.001 |
| Peak RER | 1.12 ± 0.11 | 1.10 ± 0.13 | <0.001 |
| Peak VE (L/min) | 53.1 ± 14.4 | 38.8 ± 11.2 | <0.001 |
| Peak HR (bpm) | 127 ± 23 | 111 ± 24 | <0.001 |
| Periodic breathing n (%) | 365 (%) | 660 (23%) | <0.001 |
| LVEF (%) | 34.4 ± 10.2 | 31.9 ± 10.7 | <0.001 |
| Haemoglobin (g/dL) | 13.8 ± 1.5 | 13.1 ± 1.6 | <0.001 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) | 77.4 ± 22.5 | 65.2 ± 23.8 | <0.001 |
| HR rest (bpm) | 70 ± 12 | 71 ± 13 | <0.001 |
| BNP (ng/mL) | 160 [73–462] | 340 [122–801] | <0.001 |
| Idiopathic aetiology n (%) | 1417 (46%) | 977 (34%) | <0.001 |
| Ischaemic aetiology n (%) | 1319 (41%) | 1471 (50%) | |
| Valvular aetiology n (%) | 110 (3.5%) | 162 (6%) | |
| ICD n (%) | 877 (28%) | 1026 (35%) | <0.001 |
| CRT n (%) | 303 (10%) | 442 (15%) | <0.001 |
| Mortality rate (events/1000 pts/year) | 19.9 | 61.1 | <0.001 |
LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; Peak VO2, oxygen uptake at peak exercise; VE/VCO2 slope, ventilatory efficiency by means of CO2 production/ventilation relationship; GFR, glomerular filtration rate estimated by modification of diet in renal disease formula; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide, NYHA, New York Heart Association class; ICD, implantable cardiac defibrillator; CRT, cardio resynchronization therapy.
In Table 4, we report the AUCs at 2 years of follow‐up for VE/VCO2 slope and percentage of predicted value in the total population, dividing the population according to HF severity. AUCs were significantly different in HF patients with peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg. Figure 2 shows the ROC in patients with peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg in the left panel and with peak VO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg in the right panel (P = 0.0026).
Table 4.
AUC at 2 years of follow‐up for VE/VCO2 slope and percentage of predicted value in the total population and according to heart failure severity
| VE/VCO2 slope | VE/VCO2 slope percentage of predicted value | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entire population | 0.686 | 0.690 | ns |
| Peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg | 0.637 | 0.650 | 0.0026 |
| Peak VO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg | 0.658 | 0.655 | ns |
Peak VO2, oxygen uptake at peak exercise; VE/VCO2 slope, ventilatory efficiency by means of CO2 production/ventilation relationship.
Figure 2.
Receiver operating curves in patients with severe heart failure at a 2‐year follow‐up. The area under the curve (AUC) of VE/VCO2 in patients with peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg was significantly different if expressed as absolute value or as percentage of the predicted value (P = 0.0026).
VE/VCO2 expressed as percentage of predicted value allowed reclassifying 6.6% of patients (net reclassification improvement = 0.066, P = 0.0015).
Discussion
In the present study, we built VE/VCO2 slope prediction equations based on a large population of normal subjects, and we applied these formulas to the MECKI score database. VE/VCO2 reported as a percentage of predicted value confirmed to be a strong prognostic predictor in HF patients, but with a power similar to that observed using absolute VE/VCO2 values. However, in patients with severe HF, defined as those with low peak VO2, data reported as percentages of predicted value have a stronger prognostic capacity.
The formula we derived for VE/VCO2 prediction is similar to those previously reported, but it was built on a much larger number of healthy individuals of both genders (Table 5). We preferred to put together our own standards for a few reasons: (i) to utilize the same laboratories used for HF patients' evaluation; (ii) to base our prediction on a much larger population comprehensive of both genders with subjects of all ages; (iii) to include data of several laboratories with a prolonged recruitment time; (iv) to be sure that subjects with any symptoms, known disease, or taking any treatment were excluded; (v) finally, but most importantly, to exclude highly trained subjects and athletes, so that the population analysed presumably has the same living habits as tested patients. Accordingly, peak VO2 observed in the present healthy population was 93 and 84% of the predicted value in females and males, respectively, as calculated on a US‐based population.14
Table 5.
Regressions proposed to calculate predicted VE/VCO2 slope
| Paper | N (male/female) | Male | Female | Age | Ergometer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salvioni 2019 | 1136 (773/363) | Y = 0.095*age + 20.2 | Y = 0.052*age + 23.8 | 13–83 | Cycle ergometer |
| SHIP (Koch 2009) | 534 (253/281) | Y = (‐1.5*age + 0.5*age2 + 2.5sex‐0.5*age*sex) + 22a | 25–80 | Cycle ergometer | |
| Kleber 2000 | 101 (45/56) | Y = 0.13*age + 19.9 | Y = 0.12*age + 24.4 | 16–75 | Treadmill |
| Neder 2001 | 120 (60/60) | Y = 0.12*age + 21 | Y = 0.08*age + 25.2 | 20–80 | Cycle ergometer |
| Poulin 1994 | 224 (128/96) | Y = 0.29*age + 7.69 | Y = 0.20*age + 10.08 | 55–86 | Treadmill |
| Sun 2002 | 474 (310/164) | Y = (0.082*age − 0.0723*height) + 34.38 | 37–74 | Cycle ergometer/treadmill | |
Age was graded in five classes (25–35, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, and ≥64 years) and coded for the calculation.
It should be acknowledged that healthy individuals were only tested on a cycle ergometer, so that it is unknown whether subjects tested with treadmill show a different VE/VCO2 relationship. However, two of the previous prediction formulas were based only on subjects exercising on a treadmill.21, 25 The values obtained for a 50‐year‐old subject with our equations are in between those reported by these two studies. Moreover, both in healthy individuals and in MECKI score patients, we used a ramp exercise protocol aimed at achieving peak exercise in about 10 min, a detail not clear in all previous studies in normal subjects. As regards HF patients, it is of note that MECKI score patients included a minority of cases who performed a CPET on a treadmill (6%). However, results were very similar with and without those cases, so that we decided to report results regardless of the ergometer used.
We applied our VE/VCO2 prediction equation to HF patients enrolled in the MECKI score database. The MECKI score database is an established multicentre Italian registry, first published in 2013, that comprehends HF patients who underwent maximal CPET.10 So far, 6112 patients have been enrolled, with a median follow‐up of 3.67 years (1341 days, interquartile range 630–2353 days). The MECKI score registry was undertaken to assess the risk of cardiovascular mortality, urgent heart transplant, and left ventricular assist device in HF patients able to perform a CPET. The MECKI score database is constantly updated, and 24 HF units have contributed to the database by sharing their results so far.22
The prognostic power of the VE/VCO2 slope we observed confirms the strong prognostic capability of this measurement, similar to that previously reported in several studies.9, 16, 17 Except for the report by Kleber et al.,21 previous studies and guidelines used the absolute value of VE/VCO2 slope, and specifically, the value of 34 was suggested. However, it is well known that the slope of the VE/VCO2 relationship in normal subjects is gender specific and increases with age. Interestingly, Sinagra et al.,26 in a population of young patients with cardiomyopathy (age 50 ± 11 years), reported a VE/VCO2 prognostic cut‐off value of 29, lower than the generally used 34, but understandable considering the young age and the prevalent male gender. Similarly, Magrì et al. reported a VE/VCO2 prognostic cut‐off value of 31 for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.27 Recently, age‐dependent VE/VCO2 slope prognostic cut‐off values for HF patients have been suggested, with a different value for preserved and reduced LVEF HF patients.28 It is of note that VE/VCO2 slope is included in a few scores as a continuum, avoiding any cut‐off value.10, 29 To group patients for HF severity, we used a peak VO2 cut‐off value of 14 mL/min/kg. The choice of this value is totally arbitrary and based on historical reasons,30 and an absolute peak VO2 value (12/14 mL/min/kg) is still used by HF transplant guidelines.2 Notably, the group identified by peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg showed several parameters suggestive of a more severe HF, such as LVEF, haemoglobin, kidney function, and Brain Natriuretic Peptide (Table 3). Finally, and by chance, the cut‐off value of 14 mL/min/kg allowed to identify two groups of almost equal size.
In HF patients with moderate HF, as evaluated by peak VO2 ≥ 14 mL/min/kg, the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 reported as an absolute value or as a percentage of predicted value are basically the same. This may be due to the overall low event rate in patients with moderate HF and by the low number of females. Indeed, in females, peak VO2 as an absolute value is generally low, but prognosis is better.31, 32, 33 Different considerations must be made for patients with peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg. In this population, characterized by more events, a higher number of females, and an older age, the use of VE/VCO2 slope as a percentage of predicted value significantly increased its prognostic power, and it allowed correctly reclassifying 6.6% of cases. Notably, patients with severe HF are those who need a more precise prognosis. Accordingly, we strongly suggest that VE/VCO2 slope is reported as a percentage of predicted value at least in this category of HF patients.
The present study has some important limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, patients were in stable clinical condition and therapeutic regimen since at least 3 months so that patients with recent clinical instabilization were not analysed. Second, patients with preserved LVEF were not evaluated34, 35, 36; consequently, our results cannot be extrapolated to these patient populations. Third, variables used for risk calculation were collected at enrolment, giving a static picture of the patients without accounting for possible changes in clinical status and management with potential prognostic impact, such as device implantation and changes in HF medications. Fourth, the lack of treadmill as an ergometer in the healthy subjects, as well as the small number of HF patients tested with a treadmill, limits the applicability of our formula to treadmill cases. Fifth, we built the VE/VCO2 prediction equation from—and applied it to—subjects who underwent an exercise protocol characterized by a progressively increasing workload aimed at achieving peak exercise in ~10 min. Consequently, the application of these prediction equations to different protocols or to exercise tests of different durations may be erroneous, although it has been shown that VE/VCO2 slope in a ramp protocol is independent of exercise tolerance.24 Finally, the population of HF subjects comes from a single country (Italy), and racial variables are not taken into account. Therefore, the results obtained in this population could not be extrapolated to a population of different ethnicity.
In conclusion, we propose a new prediction equation for VE/VCO2 slope, based on a large population of healthy subjects of both genders. We also showed that VE/VCO2 slope percentage of predicted value strengthens the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope in HF patients with severe exercise performance impairment. Accordingly, percentage of predicted VE/VCO2 slope value should be preferred to its absolute value for HF prognosis prediction in patients with history of low LVEF.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables were reported as mean ± SD or median and interquartile range as appropriate. Categorical variables were reported as frequency and percentage. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the best fitting linear relationship between VE/VCO2 slope and age. Differences between male and female regression equations were analysed by a linear model including the interaction factor by age and gender. The equations found, calculated separately in males and females, were then used for the prediction of normal values (VE/VCO2 slope percentage) in the HF population. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with 95% CI was used to compare the prognostic power of VE/VCO2 slope and of VE/VCO2 slope percentage at 2 years. Net reclassification improvement was employed to assess the potential of VE/VCO2 percentage to improve risk prediction in comparison to VE/VCO2 as absolute value. All statistics were performed with SPSS for windows (IBM SPSS Statistics 25).
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Funding
This research is supported by Italian Ministry of Health.
Acknowledgement
We thank Mrs. Michela Palmieri for the revision of the English.
Appendix A.
‐Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milano: Stefania Farina, Valentina Mantegazza, Alessandra Scoccia;
‐Divisione di Cardiologia Riabilitativa, Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri, IRCCS, Istituto Scientifico di Veruno, Veruno: Andrea Giordano;
‐Cardiology University Department, Heart Failure Unit and Cardiopulmonary Laboratory Santo Spirito Hospital, Roma: Roberto Ricci, Alessandro Ferraironi, Luca Arcari;
‐Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia: Valentina Carubelli;
‐Cardiologia Riabilitativa, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona: Francesca Pietrucci;
‐Istituto Auxologico Italiano, S. Luca hospital: Elena Viganò, Gabriella Malfatto, Elena Viganò;
‐Cardiologia SUN, Ospedale Monaldi Napoli: Fabio Valente, Rossella Vastarella, Rita Gravino, Teo Roselli, Andrea Buono;
‐CNR‐Milano: Renata De Maria;
‐Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Cassano Murge: Andrea Passantino, Daniela Santoro, Saba Campanale, Domenica Caputo;
‐Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Tradate: Donatella Bertipaglia;
‐Ospedali Riuniti and University of Trieste: Marco Confalonieri, Piero Gentile, Elena Zambon, Marco Morosin, Cosimo Carriere;
‐Department of Cardiology, University of Foggia, Foggia: Armando Ferraretti;
‐Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri, Milan: Giovanni Marchese;
‐Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo: Annamaria Iorio;
‐Fondazione Gabriele Monasterio, CNR‐Regione Toscana, Pisa: Luigi Pastormerlo;
‐Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, “Federico II” University, Napoli: Paola Gargiulo;
‐UOC Cardiologia, G da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza: Simone Binno;
‐Dipartimento Cardiologico “A. De Gasperis”, Ospedale Cà Granda‐ A.O. Niguarda, Milano: Fabrizio Oliva, Enrico Perna.
Salvioni, E. , Corrà, U. , Piepoli, M. , Rovai, S. , Correale, M. , Paolillo, S. , Pasquali, M. , Magrì, D. , Vitale, G. , Fusini, L. , Mapelli, M. , Vignati, C. , Lagioia, R. , Raimondo, R. , Sinagra, G. , Boggio, F. , Cangiano, L. , Gallo, G. , Magini, A. , Contini, M. , Palermo, P. , Apostolo, A. , Pezzuto, B. , Bonomi, A. , Scardovi, A. B. , Filardi, P. P. , Limongelli, G. , Metra, M. , Scrutinio, D. , Emdin, M. , Piccioli, L. , Lombardi, C. , Cattadori, G. , Parati, G. , Caravita, S. , Re, F. , Cicoira, M. , Frigerio, M. , Clemenza, F. , Bussotti, M. , Battaia, E. , Guazzi, M. , Bandera, F. , Badagliacca, R. , Di Lenarda, A. , Pacileo, G. , Passino, C. , Sciomer, S. , Ambrosio, G. , Agostoni, P. , and on behalf of MECKI score research group (2020) Gender and age normalization and ventilation efficiency during exercise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. ESC Heart Failure, 7: 371–380. 10.1002/ehf2.12582.
References
- 1. Roger VL. Epidemiology of heart failure. Circ Res 2013; 113: 646–659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, Gonzalez‐Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GMC, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P. 2016 esc guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European society of cardiology (esc)developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (hfa) of the esc. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2129–2200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Piepoli MF, Corra U, Agostoni PG, Belardinelli R, Cohen‐Solal A, Hambrecht R, Vanhees L. Statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing in chronic heart failure due to left ventricular dysfunction: Recommendations for performance and interpretation. Part i: Definition of cardiopulmonary exercise testing parameters for appropriate use in chronic heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2006; 13: 150–164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW, Antman EM, Smith SC Jr, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Jacobs AK, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B. Acc/aha 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (writing committee to update the 2001 guidelines for the evaluation and management of heart failure): Developed in collaboration with the American college of chest physicians and the international society for heart and lung transplantation: Endorsed by the heart rhythm society. Circulation 2005; 112: e154–e235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, Semigran MJ, Uber PA, Baran DA, Danziger‐Isakov L, Kirklin JK, Kirk R, Kushwaha SS, Lund LH, Potena L, Ross HJ, Taylor DO, Verschuuren EA, Zuckermann A. The 2016 international society for heart lung transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: a 10‐year update. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016; 35: 1–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Francis DP, Shamim W, Davies LC, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Anker SD, Coats AJ. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for prognosis in chronic heart failure: continuous and independent prognostic value from VE/VCO2 slope and peak Vo2 . Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 154–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Arena R, Myers J, Guazzi M. The clinical and research applications of aerobic capacity and ventilatory efficiency in heart failure: an evidence‐based review. Heart Fail Rev 2008; 13: 245–269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Weber KT, Janicki JS. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for evaluation of chronic cardiac failure. Am J Cardiol 1985; 55: 22A–31A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Arena R, Myers J, Aslam SS, Varughese EB, Peberdy MA. Peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope in patients with heart failure: a prognostic comparison. Am Heart J 2004; 147: 354–360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Agostoni P, Corra U, Cattadori G, Veglia F, La Gioia R, Scardovi AB, Emdin M, Metra M, Sinagra G, Limongelli G, Raimondo R, Re F, Guazzi M, Belardinelli R, Parati G, Magri D, Fiorentini C, Mezzani A, Salvioni E, Scrutinio D, Ricci R, Bettari L, Di Lenarda A, Pastormerlo LE, Pacileo G, Vaninetti R, Apostolo A, Iorio A, Paolillo S, Palermo P, Contini M, Confalonieri M, Giannuzzi P, Passantino A, Cas LD, Piepoli MF, Passino C. Metabolic exercise test data combined with cardiac and kidney indexes, the MECKI score: a multiparametric approach to heart failure prognosis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 167: 2710–2718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Reindl I, Wernecke KD, Opitz C, Wensel R, Konig D, Dengler T, Schimke I, Kleber FX. Impaired ventilatory efficiency in chronic heart failure: possible role of pulmonary vasoconstriction. Am Heart J 1998; 136: 778–785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Gargiulo P, Olla S, Boiti C, Contini M, Perrone‐Filardi P, Agostoni P. Predicted values of exercise capacity in heart failure: where we are, where to go. Heart Fail Rev 2014; 19: 645–653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Wasserman K, Hansen JE, Sue DY, Stringer WW, Whipp BJ. Clinical exercise testing. Principles of exercise testing and interpretation including pathophysiology and clinical applications. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p 138–139. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hansen JE, Sue DY, Wasserman K. Predicted values for clinical exercise testing. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 129: S49–S55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Jones NL, Makrides L, Hitchcock C, Chypchar T, McCartney N. Normal standards for an incremental progressive cycle ergometer test. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985; 131: 700–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wagner J, Agostoni P, Arena R, Belardinelli R, Dumitrescu D, Hager A, Myers J, Rauramaa R, Riley M, Takken T, Schmidt‐Trucksass A. The role of gas exchange variables in cardiopulmonary exercise testing for risk stratification and management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Am Heart J 2018; 202: 116–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Guazzi M, Adams V, Conraads V, Halle M, Mezzani A, Vanhees L, Arena R, Fletcher GF, Forman DE, Kitzman DW, Lavie CJ, Myers J. Eacpr/aha scientific statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations. Circulation 2012; 126: 2261–2274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Koch B, Schaper C, Ittermann T, Spielhagen T, Dorr M, Volzke H, Opitz CF, Ewert R, Glaser S. Reference values for cardiopulmonary exercise testing in healthy volunteers: the ship study. Eur Respir J 2009; 33: 389–397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Sun XG, Hansen JE, Garatachea N, Storer TW, Wasserman K. Ventilatory efficiency during exercise in healthy subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1443–1448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Neder JA, Nery LE, Peres C, Whipp BJ. Reference values for dynamic responses to incremental cycle ergometry in males and females aged 20 to 80. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164: 1481–1486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kleber FX, Vietzke G, Wernecke KD, Bauer U, Opitz C, Wensel R, Sperfeld A, Glaser S. Impairment of ventilatory efficiency in heart failure: prognostic impact. Circulation 2000; 101: 2803–2809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Agostoni P, Paolillo S, Mapelli M, Gentile P, Salvioni E, Veglia F, Bonomi A, Corra U, Lagioia R, Limongelli G, Sinagra G, Cattadori G, Scardovi AB, Metra M, Carubelli V, Scrutinio D, Raimondo R, Emdin M, Piepoli M, Magri D, Parati G, Caravita S, Re F, Cicoira M, Mina C, Correale M, Frigerio M, Bussotti M, Oliva F, Battaia E, Belardinelli R, Mezzani A, Pastormerlo L, Guazzi M, Badagliacca R, Di Lenarda A, Passino C, Sciomer S, Zambon E, Pacileo G, Ricci R, Apostolo A, Palermo P, Contini M, Clemenza F, Marchese G, Gargiulo P, Binno S, Lombardi C, Passantino A, Filardi PP. Multiparametric prognostic scores in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a long‐term comparison. Eur J Heart Fail 2018; 20: 700–710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Agostoni P, Dumitrescu D. How to perform and report a cardiopulmonary exercise test in patients with chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2019; 288: 107–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Agostoni P, Bianchi M, Moraschi A, Palermo P, Cattadori G, La Gioia R, Bussotti M, Wasserman K. Work‐rate affects cardiopulmonary exercise test results in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2005; 7: 498–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Poulin MJ, Cunningham DA, Paterson DH, Rechnitzer PA, Ecclestone NA, Koval JJ. Ventilatory response to exercise in men and women 55 to 86 years of age. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149: 408–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Sinagra G, Iorio A, Merlo M, Cannata A, Stolfo D, Zambon E, Di Nora C, Paolillo S, Barbati G, Berton E, Carriere C, Magri D, Cattadori G, Confalonieri M, Di Lenarda A, Agostoni P. Prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Int J Cardiol 2016; 223: 596–603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Magri D, Limongelli G, Re F, Agostoni P, Zachara E, Correale M, Mastromarino V, Santolamazza C, Casenghi M, Pacileo G, Valente F, Musumeci B, Maruotti A, Volpe M, Autore C. Cardiopulmonary exercise test and sudden cardiac death risk in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Heart 2016; 102: 602–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kato Y, Suzuki S, Uejima T, Semba H, Nagayama O, Hayama E, Arita T, Yagi N, Kano H, Matsuno S, Otsuka T, Oikawa Y, Kunihara T, Yajima J, Yamashita T. Relationship between the prognostic value of ventilatory efficiency and age in patients with heart failure. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2018; 25: 731–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Magri D, Re F, Limongelli G, Agostoni P, Zachara E, Correale M, Mastromarino V, Santolamazza C, Casenghi M, Pacileo G, Valente F, Morosin M, Musumeci B, Pagannone E, Maruotti A, Uguccioni M, Volpe M, Autore C. Heart failure progression in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy—possible insights from cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Circ J 2016; 80: 2204–2211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Aaronson KD, Schwartz JS, Chen TM, Wong KL, Goin JE, Mancini DM. Development and prospective validation of a clinical index to predict survival in ambulatory patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation. Circulation 1997; 95: 2660–2667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Corra U, Agostoni P, Giordano A, Cattadori G, Battaia E, La Gioia R, Scardovi AB, Emdin M, Metra M, Sinagra G, Limongelli G, Raimondo R, Re F, Guazzi M, Belardinelli R, Parati G, Magri D, Fiorentini C, Cicoira M, Salvioni E, Giovannardi M, Veglia F, Mezzani A, Scrutinio D, Di Lenarda A, Ricci R, Apostolo A, Iorio AM, Paolillo S, Palermo P, Contini M, Vassanelli C, Passino C, Giannuzzi P, Piepoli MF. Sex profile and risk assessment with cardiopulmonary exercise testing in heart failure: propensity score matching for sex selection bias. Can J Cardiol 2016; 32: 754–759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Hsich E, Chadalavada S, Krishnaswamy G, Starling RC, Pothier CE, Blackstone EH, Lauer MS. Long‐term prognostic value of peak oxygen consumption in women versus men with heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular systolic function. Am J Cardiol 2007; 100: 291–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Guazzi M, Arena R, Myers J. Comparison of the prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing between male and female patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2006; 113: 395–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Shafiq A, Brawner CA, Aldred HA, Lewis B, Williams CT, Tita C, Schairer JR, Ehrman JK, Velez M, Selektor Y, Lanfear DE, Keteyian SJ. Prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The henry ford hospital cardiopulmonary exercise testing (fit‐cpx) project. Am Heart J 2016; 174: 167–172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Shah SJ, Kitzman DW, Borlaug BA, van Heerebeek L, Zile MR, Kass DA, Paulus WJ. Phenotype‐specific treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multiorgan roadmap. Circulation 2016; 134: 73–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Van Iterson EH, Johnson BD, Borlaug BA, Olson TP. Physiological dead space and arterial carbon dioxide contributions to exercise ventilatory inefficiency in patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19: 1675–1685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]