Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Short-Term Clinical and Pathological Outcomes after Transanal versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Anterior Rectal Resection Due to Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Effectiveness of the Core Components of Cardiac Rehabilitation on Mortality and Morbidity: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Scan for Copy Number Alteration Association with Relapse-Free Survival in Colorectal Cancer with Liver Metastasis Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Rehabilitation on Outcomes after TAVI: A Preliminary Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 7
Issue 11
10.3390/jcm7110447
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predictors of Exercise Capacity in Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy

by
Joshua R. Smith
1,*,
Jose R. Medina-Inojosa
1,
Veronica Layrisse
1,2,
Steve R. Ommen
1 and
Thomas P. Olson
1
1
Division of Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55095, USA
2
San Juan Bautista School of Medicine, Caguas, PR 00727, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7(11), 447; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm7110447
Submission received: 15 October 2018 / Revised: 8 November 2018 / Accepted: 14 November 2018 / Published: 18 November 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cardiac Rehabilitation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) patients exhibit compromised peak exercise capacity (VO2peak). Importantly, severely reduced VO2peak is directly related to increased morbidity and mortality in these patients. Therefore, we sought to determine clinical predictors of VO2peak in HOCM patients. HOCM patients who performed symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing between 1995 and 2016 were included for analysis. Peak VO2 was reported as absolute peak VO2, indexed to body weight and analyzed as quartiles, with quartile 1 representing the lowest VO2peak. Step-wise regression models using demographic features and clinical and physiologic characteristics were created to determine predictors of HOCM patients with the lowest VO2peak. We included 1177 HOCM patients (age: 53 ± 14 years; BMI: 24 ± 12 kg/m2) with a VO2peak of 18.0 ± 5.6 mL/kg/min. Significant univariate predictors of the lowest VO2peak included age, female sex, New York Health Association (NYHA) class, BMI, left atrial volume index, E/e’, E/A, hemoglobin, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and a history of diabetes, hypertension, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or coronary artery disease. Independent predictors of the lowest VO2peak included age (OR, CI: 1.03, 1.02–1.06; p < 0.0001), women (4.66, 2.94–7.47; p = 0.001), a history of diabetes (2.05, 1.17–3.60; p = 0.01), BMI (0.94, 0.92–0.96; p < 0.0001), left atrial volume index (1.07, 1.05–1.21; p = 0.04), E/e’ (1.05, 1.01–1.08; p = 0.004), hemoglobin (0.76, 0.65–0.88; p = 0.0004), and NT-proBNP (1.72, 1.42–2.11; p < 0.0001). These findings demonstrate that demographic factors (i.e., age and sex), comorbidities (e.g., diabetes and obesity), echocardiography indices, and biomarkers (e.g., hemoglobin and NT-proBNP) are predictive of severely compromised VO2peak in HOCM patients.

1. Introduction

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a commonly inherited heart disease affecting 1 in 500 individuals [1], with ~70% of these patients developing the obstructive phenotype, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) [2]. Patients with HOCM have a greater risk of mortality and greater severity of heart failure than HCM patients without obstruction [3]. HCM patients with and without obstruction generally present with exertional dyspnea, fatigue, and reduced peak functional capacity [1]. Factors contributing to the diminished peak functional capacity include impaired stroke volume response, left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, chronotropic incompetence, and peripheral muscle changes [1,4,5,6].
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is recommended for HCM patients to determine the severity of exercise intolerance, and the responsible mechanisms [7,8]. CPET also has important, clinically useful prognostic utility in HCM [9,10,11,12,13]. Specifically, reduced peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) in HCM patients is associated with greater mortality and more severe progression of heart failure [9,10,12,13]. Furthermore, obstruction is associated with a further reduction in VO2peak in HCM [9,10,14,15]. HCM patients also exhibit numerous cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes, arterial hypertension, and coronary artery disease [9,10,11,16,17]. However, the contribution of these cardiovascular risk factors to the worsening of VO2peak in patients with HOCM is unknown. Therefore, in the present study we sought to determine the relationship(s) between demographic factors, comorbidities, and echocardiography indices with the compromised VO2peak in HOCM patients.

2. Experimental Section

Study design: This was a retrospective observational study of 1177 consecutive patients with HOCM tested in a single center between 1995 and 2016. All patients included in this analysis performed symptom-limited CPET testing and a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiogram within one week. Clinical CPET and echocardiographic data were obtained from an institutional database. A random sample in the electronic medical record was reviewed independently and in duplicate by two investigators (J.M.I. and V.L.) to validate the research strategy. This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board, and all patients agreed to the use of their medical records for research.
Clinical and echocardiographic assessment: HOCM diagnosis was based on clinical and echocardiographic evaluation by a cardiologist, assessing evidence of myocardial hypertrophy in the absence of cardiac or systemic disease associated with hypertrophy. Systemic hypertension did not preclude HOCM diagnosis if the myocardial hypertrophy was greater than clinically expected from the systemic hypertension. All resting transthoracic echocardiogram measurements were performed according to the guidelines of the American Society of Echocardiography. Of note, continuous wave Doppler and the modified Bernoulli equation (i.e., gradient = 4v2, where v = peak velocity) were used to determine left ventricular outflow tract gradient. Echocardiographic evidence of HOCM included left ventricular hypertrophy (i.e., septal thickness ≥15 mm) and left ventricular outflow gradient of ≥30 mmHg [8]. If obstruction was not present at rest, provocation via Valsalva maneuver, amyl nitrite, and/or exercise was performed [8].
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing: Clinically indicated CPET was performed by exercise physiologists under the supervision of a cardiologist. Patients completed an institutionally designed incremental exercise protocol [18,19] on a motor-driven treadmill (GE CASE, Milwaukee, WI, USA). Briefly, this protocol consisted of increasing two metabolic equivalents every two minutes until volitional fatigue [18,19]. To maximize generalizability and minimize potential for decompensation, cardiac medications were not withheld prior to CPET. Ventilatory and metabolic variables were measured during exercise (MGC Diagnostics, St. Paul, MN, USA). Peak VO2 was the highest 30 s averaged value, expressed as L/min and mL/kg/min. The percent (%) predicted peak VO2 was reported using the FRIEND equation [20], and a % predicted peak VO2 of <80% was defined as abnormal [13,15,21,22]. Abnormal VO2 slope change was determined by a plateau in the VO2 versus time relationship, assessed by visual inspection. For patients not prescribed beta blocker therapy, peak heart rate was predicted using 220 − age. For patients on beta blocker therapy, 119 + (0.5 × resting heart rate) − (0.5 × age) was used to determine predicted peak heart rate [23]. The O2 pulse (mL/beat) was determined by dividing VO2 by heart rate. The predicted peak O2 pulse was calculated by dividing the predicted VO2peak by the predicted peak heart rate [19]. The O2 pulse slope change was assessed visually as the relationship between O2 pulse versus time. An abnormal O2 pulse was defined as a plateau in O2 pulse during exercise. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (reported as % predicted) and breathing reserve were determined according to ATS/ERS guidelines [24].
Statistical analysis: Statistical analyses were performed using JMP software version 13.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or absolute number of patients (% of total sample) and were compared using one-way analysis of variance, Pearson chi-square test, or Fisher’s exact test accordingly. Normality was assessed by visual assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were created to test for clinical and echocardiographic predictors of low peak relative VO2. Based on previous studies [9,13,15,21], we anticipated that the majority of our sample would have an abnormal peak VO2. Therefore, we grouped our sample in evenly distributed quartiles according to peak VO2 using the lowest (i.e., quartile 1) as the referent group in a similar manner as Coats et al. [12]. Univariate modeling was performed adjusting for age, sex, clinical, and echocardiographic factors known to potentially affect peak VO2, and those that were significant were included in the final multivariate modeling. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. Missing data were handled by omission from final models. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The sample population included 676 men and 501 women, and the mean age was 53 ± 14 years. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and cardiovascular risk factors according to VO2 quartiles (quartile 1: ≤14.14; quartile 2: 14.15–17.70; quartile 3: 17.71–21.51; quartile 4: ≥21.52 mL/kg/min) are presented in Table 1. Significant differences across quartiles were present for age, height, weight, BMI, FEV1 (% predicted), hemoglobin, NT-proBNP, sex, New York Health Association (NYHA) class, dyslipidemia, smoking history, and beta blocker use. Resting echocardiographic data stratified by VO2peak quartile are presented in Table 2. Left ventricular ejection fraction, septum thickness, medial E/e’, and mitral E/A were significantly different across the quartiles. Table 3 shows the peak CPET data stratified by peak VO2. The average VO2peak for the entire sample population was 18.0 ± 5.6 mL/kg/min, with 1172 (99.6%) of the HOCM patients achieving ≤80% predicted VO2peak. At peak exercise, significant differences were present in treadmill time, VO2, respiratory exchange ratio, heart rate, breathing reserve, O2 pulse, % predicted O2 pulse, VE/VCO2, abnormal VO2 slope, and abnormal O2 pulse slope across quartiles.
Figure 1 shows the univariate predictors of VO2peak in HOCM patients. Age (p < 0.0001), female sex (p < 0.0001), NYHA class (p = 0.0003), BMI (p = 0.03), hemoglobin (<0.0001), NT-proBNP (p < 0.0001), left atrial volume index (p = 0.006), E/e’ (p < 0.0001), E/A (p < 0.0001), as well as a history of diabetes (p < 0.0001), atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04), hypertension (p < 0.0001), stroke (p = 0.01), and coronary artery disease (p = 0.02) were identified as significant predictors of the lowest VO2peak (i.e., quartile 1). Left ventricular ejection fraction, septum thickness, left ventricular outflow tract gradient, dyslipidemia, smoking history, beta blocker use, and a history of peripheral vascular disease were not significant predictors of VO2peak (all p > 0.14). Figure 2 shows the multivariate predictors of VO2peak in HOCM patients. Multivariate analysis identified age (p < 0.0001), female sex (p = 0.001), a history of diabetes (p = 0.01), BMI (p < 0.0001), left atrial volume index (p = 0.04), E/e’ (p = 0.004), hemoglobin (p = 0.0004), and NT-proBNP (p < 0.0001) as significant independent predictors of the lowest VO2peak in HOCM patients.

4. Discussion

Major findings: In the present study, we determined the clinical predictors of peak exercise capacity in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with HOCM. The novel finding of our investigation was that severely reduced exercise capacity was independently associated with female sex, a history of diabetes, age, body mass index, and echocardiography variables. Because diminished exercise capacity is predictive of mortality [9,12], the present findings highlight the critical importance of clarifying demographics and optimizing cardiovascular risk factors in HOCM patients.
Predictors of VO2peak: Patients with HCM generally exhibit reduced exercise capacity. In the present study, we found that nearly 100% of the HOCM patients had reduced exercise capacity (as indicated by VO2peak <80% predicted). This prevalence of HOCM patients with an abnormal VO2peak was substantially greater than previously reported in studies with HCM patients (i.e., 39–70%) [9,13,15,21]. As obstruction is an independent predictor of reduced exercise capacity for these patients [9,10,14,15], a likely explanation for the greater prevalence of abnormal peak exercise capacity in the present study is the diagnosed presence of obstruction in all of our patients, while previous studies have incorporated a subset of HCM with obstruction. Moreover, we found that symptoms as indicated by NYHA class were not independently predictive of diminished exercise capacity. These findings are in line with previous studies reporting that symptoms generally underestimate the severity of exercise intolerance in these patients [1,9,10,13,15,21].
In the present study, the strongest independent predictor of compromised exercise capacity in HOCM patients was female sex. Specifically, women were ~5 times more likely to have a severely reduced VO2peak compared to men. Furthermore, women had a lower peak O2pulse compared to men (10 vs. 15 mL/beat, p < 0.01). In agreement, most studies with HCM patients (with only a subset exhibiting obstruction) have found that female sex is predictive of reduced exercise capacity [13,14,17,21]. For example, Magri et al. found that male sex was independently associated with higher peak VO2 in 180 HCM patients (β = 2.84) [21]. These findings have important clinical implications, as exercise capacity is predictive of survival in HCM. In fact, a recent study in 3673 HCM patients found that female sex was associated with greater risk of mortality when analyses were adjusted for cardiovascular comorbidities, age, and symptoms [17]. Furthermore, women with HCM have more symptoms, greater left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and an increased risk for the development of overt heart failure compared to men [12,17,25,26]. The mechanism(s) underlying the sex differences reported in exercise capacity, prognosis, and mortality in these patients are not currently known, but are likely to involve social, genetic, and/or endocrine factors [26]. For example, it has been hypothesized that HOCM is misdiagnosed in women due to a variety of factors (e.g., women being less familiar with their cardiovascular risk [27]), resulting in delayed treatment and, subsequently, more severely advanced disease when an accurate diagnosis does occur [17].
A history of diabetes was the second strongest predictor of compromised exercise capacity in HOCM patients. The prevalence of diabetes in the present study (~9%) was in line with previous studies of HCM patients (3–16%) [9,10,11,16,28]. In support of the relationship between diabetes and reduced exercise capacity in HOCM, diabetes is independently associated with cardiac hypertrophy (often termed “diabetic cardiomyopathy”), compromised systolic and diastolic function, and risk of heart failure [29,30]. Multiple interrelated mechanisms have been implicated in diabetic cardiomyopathy, including fibrosis, mitochondrial dysfunction, apoptosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and microvascular dysfunction [29,31]. For example, it has been suggested that hyperglycemia-induced increases in advanced glycation end product formation impair collagen degradation, resulting in myocardial stiffness [32]. Future studies are warranted to determine the mechanisms by which diabetes contributes to exercise intolerance in HOCM patients.
Left ventricular dysfunction, as indicated by left atrial index and E/e’, was also predictive of impaired exercise capacity, with BMI and age adding additional predictive utility (OR: 0.96–1.06). These findings coincide with previous studies reporting relationships between indices of diastolic dysfunction (e.g., left atrial index, E/e’, and E/A) and impaired exercise capacity in HCM patients [33,34,35,36]. Possible underlying mechanisms responsible for the significant associations presented herein include exaggerated increases in cardiac filling pressures, pulmonary congestion, and pulmonary hypertension [37,38].
Clinical implications: HCM is a complex, highly heterogeneous disease in which left ventricular outflow tract obstruction worsens prognosis. CPET is important in HCM management because previous studies have suggested that symptoms are poor predictors of exercise capacity. Furthermore, CPET provides important mechanistic insight into the underlying causes of exercise intolerance, as well as providing prognostic value, in HCM. The findings of the present study are clinically relevant, and indicate the importance of clinically-determined demographic information and cardiovascular risks factors, specifically female sex and a history of diabetes, in predicting reduced exercise capacity. In addition, these findings provide specific clinical parameters that can be managed in order to ameliorate the severely impaired exercise capacity in these patients. Whether prevention of diabetes results in improved exercise tolerance and subsequently better prognosis and reduced mortality risk in HOCM patients is unknown.
Study limitations: The present study was retrospective and performed at a single center, and was thus susceptible to sources of bias associated with all retrospective analyses. As this study was performed in a high-volume tertiary referral center, the symptoms and exercise intolerance experienced by these HOCM patients may be more severe than in HOCM patients in the general population. It is important to note that ~15% of this large study population were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (i.e., NYHA I or II), which does provide these findings with additional generalizability. In addition, optimally treated HOCM patients were included in the present study. Thus, additional studies are necessary to determine if these associations exist in untreated, newly diagnosed HOCM patients. Left ventricular dimensions, right ventricular function, and pulmonary pressures were not included in the present study. Based on the significant associations between E/e’ and left atrial volume index with lowest VO2peak, future studies are needed to investigate the underlying mechanisms by which diastolic dysfunction impairs peak exercise capacity in HOCM patients. Lastly, the physiologic mechanisms by which female sex and a history of diabetes contribute to exercise intolerance in HOCM were not tested in the present study, and warrant future investigation.

5. Conclusions

This large HOCM study population demonstrated that demographic factors (i.e., female sex), echocardiography variables, and cardiovascular risk factors (i.e., BMI and a history of diabetes) predict exercise intolerance. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering clinical and echocardiographic cardiovascular risk factors when performing CPET in HOCM patients.

Author Contributions

J.R.S., J.R.M.-I., V.L., S.R.O., and T.P.O. were all involved in the conceptualization of the study, data collection and analysis, and preparation of the manuscript drafts. All authors read and approved the final version of the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R25-HL092621 and HL-126638RS to TPO) and American Heart Association (18POST3990251 to JRS).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Magri, D.; Santolamazza, C. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2017, 14, S102–S109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Maron, M.S.; Olivotto, I.; Zenovich, A.G.; Link, M.S.; Pandian, N.G.; Kuvin, J.T.; Nistri, S.; Cecchi, F.; Udelson, J.E.; Maron, B.J. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is predominantly a disease of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Circulation 2006, 114, 2232–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maron, M.S.; Olivotto, I.; Betocchi, S.; Casey, S.A.; Lesser, J.R.; Losi, M.A.; Cecchi, F.; Maron, B.J. Effect of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction on clinical outcome in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lele, S.S.; Thomson, H.L.; Seo, H.; Belenkie, I.; McKenna, W.J.; Frenneaux, M.P. Exercise capacity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Role of stroke volume limitation, heart rate, and diastolic filling characteristics. Circulation 1995, 92, 2886–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Jones, S.; Elliott, P.M.; Sharma, S.; McKenna, W.J.; Whipp, B.J. Cardiopulmonary responses to exercise in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Heart 1998, 80, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Kjaergaard, J.; Johnson, B.D.; Pellikka, P.A.; Cha, S.S.; Oh, J.K.; Ommen, S.R. Left atrial index is a predictor of exercise capacity in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2005, 18, 1373–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Elliott, P.M.; Anastasakis, A.; Borger, M.A.; Borggrefe, M.; Cecchi, F.; Charron, P.; Hagege, A.A.; Lafont, A.; Limongelli, G.; Mahrholdt HMcKenna, W.J.; et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 2733–2779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gersh, B.J.; Maron, B.J.; Bonow, R.O.; Dearani, J.A.; Fifer, M.A.; Link, M.S.; Naidu, S.S.; Nishimura, R.A.; Ommen, S.R.; Rakowski, H.; et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2011, 124, 2761–2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sorajja, P.; Allison, T.; Hayes, C.; Nishimura, R.A.; Lam, C.S.; Ommen, S.R. Prognostic utility of metabolic exercise testing in minimally symptomatic patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 2012, 109, 1494–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Masri, A.; Pierson, L.M.; Smedira, N.G.; Agarwal, S.; Lytle, B.W.; Naji, P.; Thamilarasan, M.; Lever, H.M.; Cho, L.S.; Desai, M.Y. Predictors of long-term outcomes in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy undergoing cardiopulmonary stress testing and echocardiography. Am. Heart J. 2015, 169, 684–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Magri, D.; Re, F.; Limongelli, G.; Agostoni, P.; Zachara, E.; Correale, M.; Mastromarino, V.; Santolamazza, C.; Casenghi, M.; Pacileo, G.; et al. Heart Failure Progression in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy- Possible Insights From Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing. Circ. J. 2016, 80, 2204–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Coats, C.J.; Rantell, K.; Bartnik, A.; Patel, A.; Mist, B.; McKenna, W.J.; Elliott, P.M. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Prognosis in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Circ. Heart Fail. 2015, 8, 1022–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Finocchiaro, G.; Haddad, F.; Knowles, J.W.; Caleshu, C.; Pavlovic, A.; Homburger, J.; Shmargad, Y.; Sinagra, G.; Magavern, E.; Wong, M.; et al. Cardiopulmonary responses and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A potential role for comprehensive noninvasive hemodynamic assessment. JACC Heart Fail. 2015, 3, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Efthimiadis, G.K.; Giannakoulas, G.; Parcharidou, D.G.; Pagourelias, E.D.; Kouidi, E.J.; Spanos, G.; Kamperidis, V.; Gavrielides, S.; Karvounis, H.; Styliadis, I.; et al. Chronotropic incompetence and its relation to exercise intolerance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Int. J. Cardiol. 2011, 153, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sharma, S.; Elliott, P.; Whyte, G.; Jones, S.; Mahon, N.; Whipp, B.; McKenna, W.J. Utility of cardiopulmonary exercise in the assessment of clinical determinants of functional capacity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 2000, 86, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Desai, M.Y.; Bhonsale, A.; Patel, P.; Naji, P.; Smedira, N.G.; Thamilarasan, M.; Lytle, B.W.; Lever, H.M. Exercise echocardiography in asymptomatic HCM: Exercise capacity, and not LV outflow tract gradient predicts long-term outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2014, 7, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Geske, J.B.; Ong, K.C.; Siontis, K.C.; Hebl, V.B.; Ackerman, M.J.; Hodge, D.O.; Miller, V.M.; Nishimura, R.A.; Oh, J.K.; Schaff, H.V.; et al. Women with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy have worse survival. Eur. Heart J. 2017, 38, 3434–3440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Squires, R.W.; Allison, T.G.; Johnson, B.D.; Gau, G.T. Non-physician supervision of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in chronic heart failure: Safety and results of a preliminary investigation. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 1999, 19, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Larsen, C.M.; Ball, C.A.; Hebl, V.B.; Ong, K.C.; Siontis, K.C.; Olson, T.P.; Ackerman, M.J.; Ommen, S.R.; Allison, T.G.; Geske, J.B. Effect of Body Mass Index on Exercise Capacity in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 2017, 121, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Myers, J.; Kaminsky, L.A.; Lima, R.; Christle, J.W.; Ashley, E.; Arena, R. A Reference Equation for Normal Standards for VO2 Max: Analysis from the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database (FRIEND Registry). Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2017, 60, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Magri, D.; Agostoni, P.; Cauti, F.M.; Musumeci, B.; Egidy Assenza, G.; De Cecco, C.N.; Muscogiuri, G.; Maruotti, A.; Ricotta, A.; Pagannone, E.; et al. Determinants of peak oxygen uptake in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A single-center study. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2014, 9, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sharma, S.; Firoozi, S.; McKenna, W.J. Value of exercise testing in assessing clinical state and prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Cardiol. Rev. 2001, 9, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Keteyian, S.J.; Kitzman, D.; Zannad, F.; Landzberg, J.; Arnold, J.M.; Brubaker, P.; Brawner, C.A.; Bensimhon, D.; Hellkamp, A.S.; Ewald, G. Predicting Maximal Heart Rate in Heart Failure Patients Receiving Beta-Blockade Therapy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Miller, M.R.; Hankinson, J.; Brusasco, V.; Burgos, F.; Casaburi, R.; Coates, A.; Crapo, R.; Enright, P.; van der Grinten, C.P.; Gustafsson, P.; et al. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur. Respir. J. 2005, 26, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Zou, Y.; Bao, J.; Sun, K.; Zhu, L.; Tian, T.; Shen, H.; Zhou, X.; Ahmad, F.; et al. Female sex is associated with worse prognosis in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Olivotto, I.; Maron, M.S.; Adabag, A.S.; Casey, S.A.; Vargiu, D.; Link, M.S.; Udelson, J.E.; Cecchi, F.; Maron, B.J. Gender-related differences in the clinical presentation and outcome of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2005, 46, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mosca, L.; Ferris, A.; Fabunmi, R.; Robertson, R.M.; American Heart, A. Tracking women’s awareness of heart disease: An American Heart Association national study. Circulation 2004, 109, 573–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Okayama, S.; Soeda, T.; Kawakami, R.; Takami, Y.; Somekawa, S.; Ueda, T.; Sugawara, Y.; Matsumoto, T.; Sung, J.H.; Nishida, T.; et al. Evaluation of coronary artery disease and cardiac morphology and function in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, using cardiac computed tomography. Heart Vessels 2015, 30, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bugger, H.; Abel, E.D. Molecular mechanisms of diabetic cardiomyopathy. Diabetologia 2014, 57, 660–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Boyer, J.K.; Thanigaraj, S.; Schechtman, K.B.; Perez, J.E. Prevalence of ventricular diastolic dysfunction in asymptomatic, normotensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Am. J. Cardiol. 2004, 93, 870–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Aneja, A.; Tang, W.H.; Bansilal, S.; Garcia, M.J.; Farkouh, M.E. Diabetic cardiomyopathy: Insights into pathogenesis, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic options. Am. J. Med. 2008, 121, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Norton, G.R.; Candy, G.; Woodiwiss, A.J. Aminoguanidine prevents the decreased myocardial compliance produced by streptozotocin-induced diabetes mellitus in rats. Circulation 1996, 93, 1905–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, J.; Buergler, J.M.; Veerasamy, K.; Ashton, Y.P.; Nagueh, S.F. Delayed untwisting: The mechanistic link between dynamic obstruction and exercise tolerance in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009, 54, 1326–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ha, J.W.; Cho, J.R.; Kim, J.M.; Ahn, J.A.; Choi, E.Y.; Kang, S.M.; Rim, S.J.; Chung, N. Tissue Doppler-derived indices predict exercise capacity in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Chest 2005, 128, 3428–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Matsumura, Y.; Elliott, P.M.; Virdee, M.S.; Sorajja, P.; Doi, Y.; McKenna, W.J. Left ventricular diastolic function assessed using Doppler tissue imaging in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Relation to symptoms and exercise capacity. Heart 2002, 87, 247–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Matsumoto, A.Y.; Arteaga, E.; Ianni, B.M.; Braga, A.M.; Buck, P.C.; Mady, C. Relationships among exercise capacity, hypertrophy, and left ventricular diastolic function in nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am. Heart J. 2005, 150, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Maeder, M.T.; Thompson, B.R.; Brunner-La Rocca, H.P.; Kaye, D.M. Hemodynamic basis of exercise limitation in patients with heart failure and normal ejection fraction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010, 56, 855–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Borlaug, B.A.; Nishimura, R.A.; Sorajja, P.; Lam, C.S.; Redfield, M.M. Exercise hemodynamics enhance diagnosis of early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ. Heart Fail. 2010, 3, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 07 00447 g001 550
Figure 1. Univariate predictors of VO2peak in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) patients. Significant predictors of the lowest VO2peak were age, female sex, BMI, left atrial volume index (LAVI, per 5 mL/m2 increase), hemoglobin, E/e’, E/A, NYHA class, NT-proBNP, and histories of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, stroke, and coronary artery disease (CAD). * per each SD increase. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval shown for each variable.
Figure 1. Univariate predictors of VO2peak in hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) patients. Significant predictors of the lowest VO2peak were age, female sex, BMI, left atrial volume index (LAVI, per 5 mL/m2 increase), hemoglobin, E/e’, E/A, NYHA class, NT-proBNP, and histories of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, stroke, and coronary artery disease (CAD). * per each SD increase. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval shown for each variable.
Jcm 07 00447 g001
Jcm 07 00447 g002 550
Figure 2. Multivariate predictors of VO2peak in HOCM patients. Significant independent predictors of the lowest VO2peak were age, female sex, a history of diabetes, BMI, left atrial volume index (LAVI, per 5 mL/m2 increase), E/e’, hemoglobin, and NT-proBNP. * per SD increase. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval are shown for each variable.
Figure 2. Multivariate predictors of VO2peak in HOCM patients. Significant independent predictors of the lowest VO2peak were age, female sex, a history of diabetes, BMI, left atrial volume index (LAVI, per 5 mL/m2 increase), E/e’, hemoglobin, and NT-proBNP. * per SD increase. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval are shown for each variable.
Jcm 07 00447 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population.
VO2peak (mL/kg/min)
≤14.1414.15–17.7017.71–21.51≥21.52All Patientsp-Value
n2942942952941177
Age (years)50 ± 1550 ± 1554 ± 1456 ± 1453 ± 14<0.001
Height (cm)171 ± 10173 ± 10172 ± 10170 ± 10171 ± 100.003
Weight (kg)94 ± 2293 ± 2090 ± 2084 ± 2091 ± 210.04
BMI (kg/m2)22 ± 1123 ± 1024 ± 1128 ± 1324 ± 12<0.001
FEV1 (% pred.) (n = 532)74 ± 1982 ± 1891 ± 1695 ± 1785 ± 19<0.001
Hemoglobin (g/dL)13.3 ± 1.514.0 ± 1.414.5 ± 1.214.8 ± 1.314.1 ± 1.5<0.001
NT-proBNP (pg/mL) *1110 (470–2264)714 (285–1417)620 (236–1151)420 (169–1092)661 (259–1385)<0.001
Sex
 Men175 (60%)196 (67%)175 (59%)130 (44%)676 (57%)<0.001
 Women119 (40%)98 (33%)120 (41%)164 (56%)501 (43%)
NYHA Class
 I4 (1%)1 (0.4%)3 (1%)7 (3%)15 (1%)0.01
 II22 (8%)40 (14%)32 (11%)53 (19%)147 (13)
 III242 (84%)236 (84%)242 (86%)202 (74%)922 (82%)
 IV20 (7%)5 (2%)5 (2%)10 (4%)40 (4%)
Diabetes
 No history261 (89%)271 (92%)272 (92%)269 (91%)1073 (91%)0.40
 History33 (11%)23 (8%)23 (8%)25 (9%)104 (9%)
Hypertension
 No history150 (51%)155 (53%)146 (50%)144 (49%)595 (51%)0.80
 History144 (49%)139 (47%)149 (50%)150 (51%)582 (49%)
Stroke
 No history218 (95%)225 (98%)229 (98%)237 (98%)909 (97%)0.10
 History11 (5%)4 (2%)4 (2%)5 (2%)24 (3%)
CAD
 No history275 (94%)285 (97%)280 (95%)280 (95%)1120 (95%)0.20
 History19 (6%)9 (3%)15 (5%)14 (5%)57 (5%)
Dyslipidemia
 No history186 (63%)178 (61%)154 (52%)157 (53%)675 (57%)0.01
 History108 (37%)116 (39%)141 (48%)137 (47%)502 (43%)
Current Smoker
 No179 (61%)206 (70%)223 (76%)241 (82%)849 (72%)<0.001
 Yes115 (39%)88 (30%)72 (24%)53 (18%)328 (28%)
Beta blocker
 No BB use262 (89%)266 (90%)274 (93%)281 (96%)1083 (92%)0.01
 BB use32 (11%)28 (10%)21 (7%)13 (4%)94 (8%)
PVD
 No history286 (97%)289 (98%)291 (99%)289 (98%)1155 (98%)0.60
 History8 (3%)5 (2%)4 (1%)5 (2%)22 (2%)
A-fib
 No history250 (85%)260 (88%)269 (92%)261 (89%)1040 (88%)0.14
 History44 (15%)34 (12%)26 (9%)33 (11%)137 (12%)
Data presented as mean ± SD or n (%). BMI: body mass index; FEV1: forced expiratory volume; NYHA: New York Health Association; CAD: coronary artery disease; PVD: peripheral vascular disease; A-fib: atrial fibrillation. * Represents median and interquartile Range (IQR).
Table
Table 2. Echocardiographic data stratified by peak VO2.
Table 2. Echocardiographic data stratified by peak VO2.
VO2peak (mL/kg/min)
≤14.1414.15–17.7017.71–21.51≥21.52All Patientsp-Value
Left ventricular ejection fraction (%) (n = 1177)66 ± 967 ± 868 ± 768 ± 767 ± 8<0.001
Septum (mm) (n = 1177)19 ± 618 ± 517 ± 518 ± 518 ± 50.03
LVOT gradient (mmHg) (n = 905)44 ± 3140 ± 3039 ± 3040 ± 3140 ± 300.07
Left atrial volume index (mL/m2) (n = 1177)38 ± 1238 ± 1338 ± 1337 ± 1738 ± 140.90
Medial E/e’ ratio (n = 1016)20 ± 1018 ± 818 ± 917 ± 818 ± 9<0.001
Mitral E/A ratio (n = 1087)1.4 ± 0.81.2 ± 0.61.2 ± 0.61.2 ± 0.61.3 ± 0.7<0.001
Data presented as mean ± SD. LVOT: left ventricular outflow tract; E/e’: ratio of the peak transmitral inflow velocity (E) to the peak mitral annular velocity (e’); E/A: ratio of E to late transmitral flow velocity (A).
Table
Table 3. Peak cardiopulmonary testing data stratified by peak VO2.
Table 3. Peak cardiopulmonary testing data stratified by peak VO2.
VO2peak (mL/kg/min)
≤14.1414.15–17.7017.71–21.51≥21.52All Patientsp-Value
Treadmill time (min)4.8 ± 1.66.0 ± 1.37.3 ± 1.58.9 ± 1.56.7 ± 2.1<0.001
Relative VO2 (mL/kg/min)11.4 ± 2.216.0 ± 1.019.4 ± 1.125.4 ± 3.718.0 ± 5.6<0.001
Absolute VO2 (L/min)1.0 ± 0.31.5 ± 0.41.8 ± 0.42.2 ± 0.51.6 ± 0.6<0.001
% Predicted peak VO236 ± 840 ± 844 ± 748 ± 742 ± 9<0.001
Respiratory exchange ratio1.12 ± 0.141.16 ± 0.111.16 ± 0.111.16 ± 0.101.15 ± 0.120.002
Heart rate (beats/min)111 ± 24123 ± 24131 ± 24138 ± 23126 ± 25<0.001
O2 pulse (mL/beat)11 ± 413 ± 414 ± 414 ± 513 ± 4<0.001
% Predicted O2 pulse45 ± 1054 ± 960 ± 970 ± 1258 ± 13<0.001
VE/VCO238 ± 1033 ± 631 ± 531 ± 533 ± 7<0.001
Breathing reserve (%) (n = 532)54 ± 1756 ± 1559 ± 1561 ± 1557 ± 160.0048
Abnormal VO2 slope change (n = 923)146 (70%)124 (54%)116 (48%)62 (26%)448 (49%)<0.001
Abnormal O2 pulse slope change (n = 919)140 (68%)136 (59%)118 (48%)71 (30%)465 (51%)<0.001
Data presented as mean ± SD. VO2: oxygen uptake; VE/VCO2: ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide production.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smith, J.R.; Medina-Inojosa, J.R.; Layrisse, V.; Ommen, S.R.; Olson, T.P. Predictors of Exercise Capacity in Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 447. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm7110447

AMA Style

Smith JR, Medina-Inojosa JR, Layrisse V, Ommen SR, Olson TP. Predictors of Exercise Capacity in Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2018; 7(11):447. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm7110447

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smith, Joshua R., Jose R. Medina-Inojosa, Veronica Layrisse, Steve R. Ommen, and Thomas P. Olson. 2018. "Predictors of Exercise Capacity in Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy" Journal of Clinical Medicine 7, no. 11: 447. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm7110447

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop