Hemodynamic Basis of Exercise Limitation in Patients With Heart Failure and Normal Ejection Fraction

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2010-09, Vol.56 (11), p.855-863
• Main Authors: Maeder, Micha T., MD, Thompson, Bruce R., PhD, Brunner-La Rocca, Hans-Peter, MD, Kaye, David M., MD, PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Blood pressure; Cardiology; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular; Cardiovascular system; Case-Control Studies; Circulatory system; Drug therapy; echocardiography; ejection fraction; Exercise; Exercise - physiology; Female; Heart; Heart attacks; heart failure; Heart Failure - physiopathology; Heart failure, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, cardiac enlargement; Hemodynamics; Humans; Internal Medicine; Investigative techniques of hemodynamics; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Stroke Volume
• ISSN: 0735-1097; 1558-3597
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.040

Objectives The purpose of this study was to invasively investigate the hemodynamic response to exercise in patients with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFNEF) and to evaluate the ability of the peak early diastolic transmitral velocity to peak early diastolic annular velocity ratio (E/e′) to reflect exercise hemodynamics. Background There is little information regarding the hemodynamic response to exercise in HFNEF. Methods Patients with HFNEF (n = 14) and asymptomatic controls (n = 8) underwent right-side heart catheterization at rest and during supine cycle ergometer exercise and echocardiography with measurement of resting and peak exercise E/e′. Results Resting pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (10 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 10 ± 4 mm Hg; p = 0.94) was similar in HFNEF patients and controls, but stroke volume index (SVI) (p = 0.02) was lower, and systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) (p = 0.01) was higher in patients. Patients stopped exercise at lower work rate (0.63 ± 0.29 W/kg vs. 1.13 ± 0.49 W/kg; p = 0.006). Although peak exercise PCWP was similar in both groups (23 ± 6 mm Hg vs. 20 ± 7 mm Hg; p = 0.31), the peak PCWP/work rate ratio was higher in patients compared with controls (46 ± 31 mm Hg/W/kg vs. 20 ± 9 mm Hg/W/kg; p = 0.03). Peak exercise SVI (p = 0.001) was lower and SVRI was higher (p = 0.01) in patients. Resting E/e′ was modestly elevated in patients (13.2 ± 4.1 vs. 9.5 ± 3.4; p = 0.04). Peak exercise E/e′ did not differ between the groups (11.1 ± 3.4 vs. 9.4 ± 3.4; p = 0.28). Conclusions The HFNEF patients achieved a similar peak exercise PCWP to that of asymptomatic controls, at a much lower workload. This occurs at a lower SVI and in the setting of higher SVRI. The E/e′ does not reflect the hemodynamic changes during exercise in HFNEF patients.