Premium
Physiological dead space and arterial carbon dioxide contributions to exercise ventilatory inefficiency in patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction heart failure
Author(s) -
Van Iterson Erik H.,
Johnson Bruce D.,
Borlaug Barry A.,
Olson Thomas P.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
european journal of heart failure
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.149
H-Index - 133
eISSN - 1879-0844
pISSN - 1388-9842
DOI - 10.1002/ejhf.913
Subject(s) - medicine , heart failure , ejection fraction , cardiology , inefficiency , carbon dioxide , dead space , heart failure with preserved ejection fraction , respiratory system , ecology , economics , biology , microeconomics
Aims Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction demonstrate an increased ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇ E /V̇CO 2 ) slope. The physiological correlates of the V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope remain unclear in the two HF phenotypes. We hypothesized that changes in the physiological dead space to tidal volume ratio (V D /V T ) and arterial CO 2 tension (PaCO 2 ) differentially contribute to the V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope in HFrEF vs. HFpEF. Methods and results Adults with HFrEF ( n = 32) and HFpEF ( n = 27) [mean ± standard deviation (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction: 22 ± 7% and 61 ± 9%, respectively; mean ± SD body mass index: 28 ± 4 kg/m 2 and 33 ± 6 kg/m 2 , respectively; P < 0.01] performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing with breath‐by‐breath ventilation and gas exchange measurements. PaCO 2 was measured via radial arterial catheterization. We calculated the V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope via linear regression, and V D /V T = 1 − [(863 × V̇CO 2 )/(V̇ E × PaCO 2 )]. Resting V D /V T (0.48 ± 0.08 vs. 0.41 ± 0.11; P = 0.04), but not PaCO 2 (38 ± 5 mmHg vs. 40 ± 3 mmHg; P = 0.21) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. Peak exercise V D /V T (0.39 ± 0.08 vs. 0.32 ± 0.12; P = 0.02) and PaCO 2 (33 ± 6 mmHg vs. 38 ± 4 mmHg; P < 0.01) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. The V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope was higher in HFrEF compared with HFpEF (44 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 8; P < 0.01). Variance associated with the V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope in HFrEF and HFpEF was explained by peak exercise V D /V T ( R 2 = 0.30 and R 2 = 0.50, respectively) and PaCO 2 ( R 2 = 0.64 and R 2 = 0.28, respectively), but the relative contributions of each differed (all P < 0.01). Conclusions Relationships between the V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope and both V D /V T and PaCO 2 are robust, but differ between HFpEF and HFrEF. Increasing V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope appears to be strongly explained by mechanisms influential in regulating PaCO 2 in HFrEF, which contrasts with the strong role of increased V D /V T in HFpEF.