Search

(1) Background: The exercise capacity of patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains limited despite mechanical support. Higher dead space ventilation (VD/VT) may be a surrogate for right ventricular to pulmonary artery uncoupling (RV–PA) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to explain persistent exercise limitations. (2) Methods: We investigated 197 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with (n = 89) and without (HFrEF, n = 108) LVAD. As a primary outcome NTproBNP, CPET, and echocardiographic variables were analyzed for their potential to discriminate between HFrEF and LVAD. As a secondary outcome CPET variables were evaluated for a composite of hospitalization due to worsening heart failure and overall mortality over 22 months. (3) Results: NTproBNP (OR 0.6315, 0.5037–0.7647) and RV function (OR 0.45, 0.34–0.56) discriminated between LVAD and HFrEF. The rise of endtidal CO2 (OR 4.25, 1.31–15.81) and VD/VT (OR 1.23, 1.10–1.40) were higher in LVAD patients. Group (OR 2.01, 1.07–3.85), VE/VCO2 (OR 1.04, 1.00–1.08), and ventilatory power (OR 0.74, 0.55–0.98) were best associated with rehospitalization and mortality. (4) Conclusions: LVAD patients displayed higher VD/VT compared to HFrEF. Higher VD/VT as a surrogate for RV–PA uncoupling could be another marker of persistent exercise limitations in LVAD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beta blockers (BB) reduce chronotropic response and exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). To analyze the influence of BB on exercise performance and O 2 pulse increase as a surrogate for stroke volume in HFpEF. We retrospectively analyzed the influence of BB intake (yes: n = 48/no: n = 51) on peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak), oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), and increase of O 2 pulse in HFpEF patients undergoing cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Associations of outcome variables and risk category of the algorithm of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-PEFF score) were calculated. Patients on BB showed lower VO 2peak (p =.003) and OUES (p =.002), with a dominant effect in the high-risk (p =.020; 0.002), but not in the low risk-group (p =.434; p =.499). In the intermediate group BB showed a trend towards lower VO 2peak (p =.078) and lower values for OUES (p =.020). Patients on BB also demonstrated a lower increase of O 2 pulse during exercise (p =.002), without differences between HFA-PEFF risk groups (low: p =.322, intermediate: p =.269, high: p =.313). BB reduce exercise capacity and O 2 pulse increase in HFpEF patients. Direct quantification of O 2 pulse increase may help to improve the discrimination of HFpEF patients. [Display omitted] • BB intake is associated with reduced exercise capacity in HFpEF patients. • BB intake reduces O 2 pulse increase as a surrogate for blunted stroke volume. • BB should be avoided in selected HFpEF patients. • Cardiopulmonary exercise testing contributes to characterize HFpEF phenotype [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV), indicating pathological fluctuations on pulmonary arterial pressure, is associated with mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). Whether left ventricular assist device (LVAD)‐induced ventricular unloading can reverse EOV and may prevent short‐term rehospitalization has not been investigated. Methods: We performed a retrospective single‐center in‐ and outpatient analysis of patients with (n = 20, LVAD) and without (n = 27, HF) circulatory support and reduced ejection fraction (EF, 22.8 ± 7.9%). The association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) variables and 3 months‐rehospitalization (3MR) as a primary outcome was analyzed. Furthermore, CPET variables were compared regarding the presence of EOV (+/−). Results: Lower VO2peak (11.6 ± 4.9 ml/kg/min vs. 14.4 ± 4.3 ml/kg/min, p = 0.039), lower increase of PETCO2 (CI = 0.049–1.127; p = 0.068), and higher VE/VCO2 (43.8 ± 9.5 vs. 38.3 ± 10.6; p = 0.069) were associated with 3MR. Flattening of O2 pulse (CI = 0.139–2.379; p = 0.487) had no impact on 3MR. EOV was present in 59.5% (n = 28/47) of patients, without a significant difference between LVAD and HF patients (p = 0.959). Patients with HF/EOV+ demonstrated significantly lower VO2peak compared with HF/EOV− (p = 0.039). LVAD/EOV+ displayed significantly lower EF (p = 0.004) and fewer aortic valve opening than LVAD/EOV− (p = 0.027). Conclusions: Lower VO2peak, but not EOV, was associated with 3MR. EOV occurred at a similar rate in LVAD and HF patients, which may illustrate insufficient unloading during exercise in chronic LVAD therapy and may contribute to the limited exercise capacity following LVAD implantation. Simultaneous CPET and right heart catheterization studies are needed to elucidate whether EOV may serve as a non‐invasive predictor of insufficient LV unloading necessitating LVAD reprograming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beta-blocker (BB) therapy is a main pillar in treating patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and has shown a prognostic benefit. However, evidence for application of BB in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially in the absence of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation or arterial hypertension, is scarce. HFpEF is characterized by elevations in left atrial pressure and reduced compliance of the left ventricle leading to a hampered increase of cardiac output (CO) during exercise, which results in exertional dyspnea. This may be due to either a limited increase in stroke volume or reduced chronotropy during physical activity. We critically discuss the pathophysiological background of HFpEF, current data on BB in heart failure therapy, as well as the potential benefits and harms of BB therapy in HFpEF. Furthermore, we argue that non-cardio selective BB with peripheral activity to reduce afterload may be more suitable in this population than cardio-selective BB. Although preliminary data on BB in HFpEF are available, multicenter prospective trials to assess a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity are warranted. Future trials need to focus on phenotyping HFpEF patients and assess who may benefit most from tailored BB therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]