Stroke Volume Reserve Is an Independent Predictor of Survival and Need for Advanced Therapies in Systolic Heart Failure Patients

Ibrahim Selevany, Timothy Morris, Florin Vaida, Eric D. Adler, Barry H. Greenberg, Paul J. Kim
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.21.19015610

Abstract

Background We investigated whether stroke volume reserve (STVR) would predict 1-year mortality and need for advanced therapies in heart-failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients.

Methods and Results We retrospectively studied 104 ambulatory patients with HFrEF (59.2±10.2 years, 89% male) referred for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). At 1 year, 39 outcomes were observed: 16 heart-transplants (HTx), 8 left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), and 15 deaths. Stroke volume (SV) was determined by the Fick principle with established values for C[a-v]O2 at rest and anaerobic threshold (AT). STVR was calculated by SVAT/SVrest. Multi-predictor regression showed a correlation of STVR≤1.3 (OR 7.92, p=0.002), cardiac index by right heart catheterization≤2 (OR 3.07, p=0.049), and peak VO2 below the 2016 ISHLT cut-off (OR 4.09, p=0.011). HFrEF patients with a low peak VO2 and STVR>1.3 showed similar survival compared to patients with a peak VO2 above the ISHLT cut-off. A scoring system was developed: STVR≤1.3—2 points, peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off—1 point, and cardiac index≤2—1 point. A score of ≥3 demonstrated a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 79% for 1-year events.

Conclusions STVR is a novel parameter that may better predict 1-year outcomes than peak VO2 in HFrEF patients.

Highlights

  • Peak VO2 is used to predict outcomes in HFrEF patients.

  • Peak VO2 correlates poorly with mortality due to many contributing factors.

  • STVR is a novel CPET parameter that may better predict outcomes than peak VO2.

  • Patients with adequate peak VO2 but abnormal STVR are at high risk for 1-year events.

Introduction

The morbidity and mortality of HFrEF patients have improved considerably over the years since the first major heart-failure trial, the Veterans Administration Heart Failure Trial (V-HeFT-I), was published (1-3). However, despite advancements in modern medical therapy, there remain patients who continue to progress in their heart-failure course and prompt evaluation for advanced heart-failure therapies (4). These patients are considered to be in advanced or ACC/AHA Stage D heart-failure (5). Significant limitation in exercise tolerance, typically using a threshold of peak oxygen consumption (VO2) < 12-14 ml/kg/min, is a commonly cited indicator for advanced therapies by the ISHLT (6, 7).

The use of a specific peak exercise VO2 level however has several limitations because it can be influenced by multiple other factors including muscle deconditioning, age, gender, obesity, and anemia (8-10). Though ideally VO2 would correlate highly with cardiac output (CO), it is fundamentally limited by the fact that it cannot account for the change in arteriovenous difference in oxygen content (C[a-v]O2) during exercise (11). The relationship is described by the Fick principle: peak VO2 = peak CO x peak C[a-v]O2. As a result, invasive assessments of hemodynamic response showed additional prognostic value because they provide accurate measurements of peak CO (12, 13). However, invasively derived hemodynamic measurements during exercise are difficult to perform routinely and noninvasive measurements of CO are also technically complicated and lack accuracy (8, 14, 15). Thus neither methods have gained widespread acceptance.

Stringer and his colleagues previously described the relationship with SV and exercise, also recently confirmed by Gmada and coauthors (11, 16). The authors show that SV increases during the initial and intermediate phases of exercise and peaks at AT. Any further increase in CO is dependent on increase in heart rate. Given this consistent relationship between VO2 and CO up to AT, we are able to accurately estimate the increase in SV at AT non-invasively.

In this study, we evaluated the prognostic significance of SV at AT divided by SV at rest, defined as STVR, in HFrEF patients compared to the usual measures of CPET, i.e., peak VO2, VO2 at AT (AT VO2), and minute ventilation divided by carbon dioxide output (VE/VCO2). To date, no study utilizing STVR for risk stratification in HFrEF patients have been performed. We hypothesized that STVR would better predict mortality, LVAD implantation, or HTx in HFrEF patients.

Methods

Study Population and Design

We retrospectively analyzed 104 HFrEF patients who underwent CPET at the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego), physiology laboratory for advanced therapies evaluation consecutively between January 2017 and September 2018. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% by echocardiography and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV were included. Patients less than 18 years old, with congenital heart disease, planned coronary revascularization, previous transplantation, requiring intravenous inotropic therapy or failing to reach AT were excluded.

Exercise Protocol

Incremental symptom-limited CPET was performed using a V-max metabolic cart (CareFusion, San Diego, CA). A technician selected an appropriate step-wise treadmill exercise protocol based on the patient’s weight and expected work expenditure (50, 100, or 150 Watts). All patients performed exercise testing on a treadmill. The treadmill protocols had been clinically validated within each weight interval to produce a uniform increase in mechanical work and metabolic energy expenditure per incremental step. Each patient performed a maximum voluntary ventilation maneuver prior to exercise. A calibrated ptcCO2 sensor was placed in the subclavicular skin or ear lobe position, depending on patient preference. Exhaled gases, electrocardiography and pulse oximetry were measured continuously. After a 2-3-minute period of standing at rest, each patient exercised with one-minute incremental increases in workload until the point of exhaustion. Minute ventilation (VE), VO2, carbon dioxide output (VCO2), and other cardiopulmonary variables were acquired on a breath-by-breath basis and averaged over 30-second intervals. Within each increment, the ptcCO2 reading at 30 seconds was accepted as an estimate of the paCO2 for the entire increment. The ventilatory AT was detected by the V-slope method (17).

SV at rest and at AT

SV during rest and at AT were reflected noninvasively by the equation: SV = (VO2 / heart rate) / C[a-v]O2. The C[a-v]O2 was estimated to be 6.1 ml O2 / 100 ml blood at rest and 11.3 ml O2 / 100 ml blood at AT. The estimates of C[a-v]O2 at rest and at AT reflect the values consistently measured by arterial and pulmonary artery blood sampling in healthy subjects and in patients at various stages of heart failure (18-21). They also approximate the C[a-v]O2 we have measured at rest and at AT in patients with pulmonary hypertension who underwent exercise testing in our center’s catheterization laboratory with pulmonary artery and arterial catheters in place (unpublished communication). Previous invasive experiments on healthy subjects demonstrated an increase in the stroke volume by approximately 40% at AT when compared to rest (22-25).

Outcomes and Data Acquisition

The primary outcome was a composite of death, HTx or LVAD implantation 1 year after performance of CPET. Outcomes determined by chart review and patient follow up via phone calls for patients that were not seen in the hospital system within the past 3 months. All of the authors have full access to the data in the study and take full responsibility for its integrity and the analysis. All aspects of this study were approved by the UC San Diego Human Research Protections Program.

Right heart catheterization data was obtained within 30 days of CPET for 82 of the 104 patients. Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was calculated as: PVR (Wood units) = [mean pulmonary artery pressure (PA) - pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) / CO. Transpulmonary gradient (TPG) was calculated as: TPG (mmHg) = mean PA - PCWP. The RV stroke work index (RVSWI) was calculated as (mean PA - mean RA) x SV index x 0.0136 (g-m2/beat). All other clinical data was obtained at the time of CPET.

Statistical Analysis

The predictors of 1-year composite outcome were identified using single- and multi-predictor logistic regression. Multi-predictor logistic regression used backwards model selection, starting with the covariates significant at p<0.05 in single-predictor models, and with a p<0.05 threshold for inclusion. As an additional step, the predictors from the final multi-predictor model were dichotomized using defined cut-offs. The cut-off values for STVR and cardiac index were chosen to minimize the Euclidian distance from the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve to the upper-left corner of the ROC graph, in effect maximizing a combination of sensitivity and specificity (26, 27). For the other parameters in our model, including peak VO2, Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) score, and Kato model score, previous studies and the 2016 ISHLT guidelines for heart-transplant listing (7, 28) were used for selection of the cut-off values. Based on the final multi-predictor logistic regression model, which included the dichotomized STVR, peak VO2, and cardiac index, we created a “STVR risk score”, which uses simple integer weights for each of the three covariates, based on their model coefficient (i.e., log odds ratio), with the lowest coefficient receiving 1 point, as a reference value. The reason for using the logistic regression model coefficients as a basis for the score is that in the predictive model the risk score is linearly associated with the log-odds of the event. This method is similar but not identical to that of Kato et al (28).

To validate the independence of each predictive covariate, we investigated the predictive ability of three clinically validated risk stratification scores, namely the HFSS score, Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) score, and the Kato model score (28-30) and subsequently included the HFSS score and the Kato model score into our final multi-predictor logistic regression model. HFSS is calculated using an algorithm which accounts for the presence of multiple prognostic risk factors and baseline clinical characteristics, specifically the presence of coronary artery disease, resting heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, presence or absence of interventricular conduction defect, peak VO2, and serum sodium (30-32). The Kato model score is a recently described risk stratification tool that non-invasively assessed markers of left sided and right sided congestion to guide risk assessment (28).

The time-to event distributions were generated separately for the two groups based on STVR below and above the threshold, and for the four groups based on the cross-classification of STVR below/above threshold and peak VO2 below/above threshold, using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The relative risk in the different groups was assessed via the hazard ratio from the Cox proportional hazards model, and group comparison was based on the log-rank test.

In supplemental analyses, we compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of the two cohorts with STVR above and below the cut off. Comparison of variables used independent Student’s t-tests for continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact test for binary variables.

In all analyses p < 0.05 was considered significant; two-sided hypothesis tests and confidence intervals were used throughout. Statistical analyses were performed using Prism 8 for Windows (GraphPad Software, Inc, San Diego, CA) and Excel’s XLMiner Analysis ToolPak (Microsoft Excel; Microsoft Corp, Bellevue, WA).

Results

Clinical Characteristics and 1-year Outcomes

The clinical characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of the patients was 59 years, 89% were male, and 51% had an ischemic etiology. The majority of the patients were on appropriate medical therapy with 88% on β-blocker therapy, 25% also requiring digoxin or ivabradine, 95% on either ACEI/ARB, ARNI or isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine therapy, and 84% received either a CRT or an ICD. All patients had symptomatic heart failure, with a mean NYHA class of 2.8 ± 0.6. Mean peak VO2 at the time of HTx evaluation was 15.5 ml/kg/min and mean LVEF was 22.3%. The mean HFSS of our cohort was 8.0. We were able to obtain hemodynamic data on 82 of the 104 patients. The mean RA pressure was 8.9 mmHg, PCWP was 18.2 mmHg, PVR 2.8 Wood units and cardiac index of 2.2 liters/min/m2.

View this table:
Table 1.

Clinical Characteristics of Patients at Time of CPET

Among 104 patients, 16 patients (15.4%) required HTx, 8 required LVAD (7.7%) and 15 (14.4%) patients died within 1 year after HTx evaluation. Thus, a total of 39 patients (37.5%) reached the primary composite end-point.

Univariate Analysis of Factors Associated with 1-Year Events

The results of the association of factors with 1-year events are shown in Table 2. As continuous variables, higher NYHA functional class, lower STVR, higher VE/VCO2slope, lower AT VO2, lower peak oxygen pulse, lower HFSS score and decreased hemoglobin levels were found to be significantly associated with events after HTx evaluation. In addition, several hemodynamic parameters obtained from right heart catheterization, including higher mean RA pressure, higher mean PA pressure, higher PCWP, lower mixed venous oxygen saturation and decreased cardiac index, were associated with one-year events. Lower RVSWI was not found to associated with 1-year events in this patient population. As categorical variables, a score≥4 by the Kato model score was significantly correlated with 1-year events while the SHFM score predicting < 80% 1-year survival was not.

View this table:
Table 2.

Factors Associated With 1-Year Composite Events in Single-Predictor Logistic Regression

Multi-predictor Logistic Regression of Factors Associated with 1-Year Events

Subsequently, STVR, peak VO2, AT VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, peak oxygen pulse, mean RA pressure, mean PA pressure, PCWP, cardiac index, mixed venous oxygen saturation, hemoglobin level, NYHA class, and HFSS were included in the multi-predictor model. Stepwise backward logistic regression was used to arrive at the final predictive model (table 3)—notably STVR≤1.3, peak VO2<12 to 14 ml/kg/min or ≤ 50% predicted as per the 2016 ISHLT heart-transplant listing guidelines (7), and cardiac index≤2.0 were independently associated with clinical outcomes.

View this table:
Table 3.

Multi-predictor Logistic Regression of Factors Associated with 1-Year Events. Covariates were dichotomized using published or data-based cut-offs.

The HFSS score and Kato model score was subsequently added to a separate multi-predictor model as previously described—the results of these three separate multi-predictor models are shown in table 3. The OR was highest using STVR≤1.3 and notably higher than using peak VO2 criteria as per the ISHLT cut-off. Furthermore, STVR retained its predictive ability when combined with the HFSS and the Kato model score in separate models.

Comparison of HFrEF Patients Dichotomized by STVR

Using the cut-off of STVR≤1.3, we categorized the HFrEF patients into two groups, patients with normal STVR and patients with abnormal STVR as shown in Supplementary Table S1. Interestingly, the two groups were remarkably similar in their clinical characteristics with significant differences seen only in HFSS score, diuretic use, and hemoglobin level. Abnormal CPET parameters differentiated the two groups further with significantly decreased exercise time, AT SV, AT VO2, peak VO2, and VE/VCO2 slope in the abnormal STVR group. When comparing the AT SV to rest SV, the normal STVR patients showed the expected greater than 30% increase in SV at AT while the abnormal STVR patients showed a trend towards slight decrease in SV at AT compared to SV at rest. The comparison between these two patient groups exemplify the importance and need for using CPET to identify patients who are at high risk for 1-year events.

Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves and ROC Analysis

The event-free rate from the time of HTx evaluation of patients with STVR > 1.3 and those ≤ 1.3 is shown in Figure 1. The area under the curves of ROC analysis for STVR was 0.865 and higher than any other single factor as shown in Figure 2A.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Kaplan-Meier Curves of HFrEF patients after CPET classified as abnormal STVR (STVR≤1.3) and normal STVR (STVR>1.3). The end-point was set as death, LVAD implantation, or HTx. Patients with normal STVR showed significantly higher event free survival compared to abnormal STVR patients.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

A) ROC curves for AT VO2, peak VO2, STVR, and PCWP. B) ROC curves for our STVR risk score, HFSS, Kato model, and SHFM scores. The AUC was highest for STVR compared to other single-predictors and highest for the STVR risk score compared to other risk score models. AUC (c-statistic) and the respective 95% CI are listed.

We subsequently created our own STVR risk score, as described in the statistical methods section. In this model, STVR≤1.3 is weighted 2 points, and peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off and cardiac index≤2.0 were both weighted 1 point. The ROC analysis using this model showed that a cut-off of ≥ 3 points yielded a sensitivity of 66.7%, a specificity of 83.0% and the highest predictive accuracy of 76.3% for association with 1-year events after CPET. In comparison with HFSS, SHFM and Kato risk model scores, we found the STVR risk score had the highest area under the curve of 0.91 as shown in Figure 2B.

Kaplan-Meier Survival Curves Using Cross-classification of STVR and Peak VO2

Figure 3 shows STVR provides additional useful prognostic information and can be used to further risk stratify HFrEF patients beyond peak VO2. Figure 4 demonstrates a useful schematic for cross-classification of HFrEF patients by STVR and peak VO2. Patients with peak VO2 above the 2016 ISHLT cut-off and abnormal STVR demonstrated similar prognosis to HFrEF patients with peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off that were not significantly different (Supplemental Figure S1). HFrEF patients with a peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off but normal STVR showed similar prognosis to HFrEF patients with peak VO2 greater than the ISHLT cut-off that were not significantly different (Supplemental Figure S2). Cox proportional hazards analysis including STVR and peak VO2 as risk factors for the composite event showed that abnormal STVR (HR 5.47, 95% CI 1.91, 15.62, p<0.002) and peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.35, 5.43, p=0.005) were both independently predictive of clinical events. Supplemental figure S3 shows cross-classification into four cohorts using STVR and peak VO2. The top two cohorts with the best survival were defined by normal STVR while the bottom two cohorts with the worst survival were defined by abnormal STVR.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves of HFrEF patients by peak VO2 with two subgroups additionally cross-classified by STVR. The solid gray and black lines represent patients stratified by peak VO2 using the 2016 ISHLT criteria. The dashed black and gray lines represent patients further cross-classified by STVR. Despite low peak VO2, patients with normal STVR performed similarly compared to patients with peak VO2 above the ISHLT cut-off. Additionally, despite “adequate” peak VO2 above the ISHLT cut-off, patients with abnormal STVR demonstrated a low event free survival that was similar to patients with a low peak VO2. STVR≤1.3 and peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off were analyzed in a multi-predictor Cox proportional hazards model to derive the hazard ratios listed in the figure and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals— the reference group was STVR>1.3 and peak VO2 above the ISHLT cut-off.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Schematic using cross-classification of HFrEF patients by STVR below/above 1.3 threshold and peak VO2 below/above 2016 ISHLT cut-off.

Discussion

Major Findings

In the present study, we have demonstrated that: (i) STVR, a novel CPET parameter, is a better predictor of 1-year events, including death, HTx and LVAD implantation, in HFrEF patients than traditional CPET parameters, i.e., peak VO2, AT VO2, and VE/VCO2 slope; (ii) ambulatory HFrEF patients with an abnormal STVR have a significant 1-year event rate of 54.1%; (iii) HFrEF patients with an abnormal STVR had a poor 1-year prognosis regardless of their peak VO2; (iv) the novel risk-stratification model, consisting of a simple scoring system of STVR≤1.3 = 2 points, peak VO2 < ISHLT cut-off = 1 point, and cardiac index≤2 = 1 point, could sufficiently discriminate patients with a high risk for 1-year events in this cohort.

STVR and CO

Peak VO2 derived from CPET has modest correlation with peak CO because it is influenced by multiple additional factors, including age, gender, muscle deconditioning, obesity, anemia, lung function, use of β-blockers, and also congenital heart disease (9, 10, 33). As a result, invasive hemodynamic parameters, usually CO, cardiac power output or stroke work index, provided additional prognostic information beyond measurement of peak VO2 (12, 13). In particular, in HFrEF patients with a peak VO2 below 14 ml/kg/min, those patients who demonstrated a normal CO response demonstrated a similar survival to patients with a peak VO2 greater than 14 ml/kg/min. Thus estimates of hemodynamic parameters also discriminated between high and low risk patients among HFrEF patients with low exercise tolerance (34).

SV correlates highly with VO2 during the initial and intermediate phases of exercise up to the AT (11, 14, 16). However, after AT, SV will plateau and this relationship no longer holds due to the relatively low r-squared between VO2 and arteriovenous oxygen difference beyond 60% of maximal aerobic power (11, 16). Any further increase in CO after AT is dictated by heart rate since the SV is essentially fixed. This understanding of the relationship between SV and VO2 during exercise likely explains the limitation of using peak oxygen pulse or peak VO2 pulse as a surrogate for SV despite accounting for heart rate (11, 35, 36). Thus, we utilized the strong and predictable linear relationship with SV and VO2 during the initial and intermediate exercise periods to calculate the STVR, defined as SV at AT / SV at rest. Using previously published data from healthy subjects, patients with HFrEF and patients with severe COPD, we subsequently defined a cut-off by the area under the ROC curve to be STVR≤1.3 to identify HFrEF patients with abnormal STVR (16, 18-20, 22).

Therefore, we were able to use STVR as a noninvasive measure of CO response at AT. By measuring the response in SV, this eliminates other contributing factors of peak VO2. The reserve component of STVR is particularly novel. Other CPET parameters use absolute thresholds despite patient differences or attempt to account for some of these confounding variables using percent predicted thresholds. However, for all patients, we still would reasonably expect them to mount an appropriate cardiac reserve to increased metabolic demands. Thus, STVR identifies those high risk HFrEF patients who are unable to demonstrate an appropriate increase in SV at AT. An additional value of STVR, that should not be overlooked, is that it can be measured in patients who do not achieve adequate exercise effort, often defined as a respiratory exchange ratio < 1.05, as long as AT is reached. Of note, we observed an increased risk in death in patients who failed to reach AT, a correlation also previously noted by Agostoni and colleagues (37). In the current study, three out of the five HFrEF patients who failed to reach AT died within one year. These patients were not included in this study.

Risk-stratification in HFrEF Patients

Currently, there are no universal criteria for identifying HFrEF patients who should be evaluated for advanced heart-failure therapies (4). As a result, risk scores such as the SHFM and HFSS are often used to identify HFrEF patients at high risk for 1-year events. However, these scores show only fair prognostic accuracy (38) and in fact, only the HFSS score showed predictive value in this study. The Kato model score (28), which focuses on measures of surrogate markers of left and right sided dysfunction, showed predictive value in our study and performed similarly to STVR alone, corroborating the utility of STVR in risk stratification. Furthermore, our novel STVR risk score demonstrates superior predictive accuracy compared to Kato model score. Thus, in a patient population where accurate predictive factors have been historically difficult to identify, we show the significant incremental value of utilizing STVR. In particular, STVR is most valuable in identifying HFrEF patients at high risk for 1-year events who were initially considered low risk by peak VO2 alone with “adequate” exercise tolerance. While these patients (adequate peak VO2 with abnormal STVR) were thought to have favorable prognosis associated with adequate peak VO2, poor cardiac reserve indicated by abnormal STVR identifies their true high risk status inherently related to their end-stage cardiomyopathy. Conversely, HFrEF patients that were initially considered to be high risk by peak VO2 who demonstrate a normal cardiac reserve by STVR show a similar survival compared to patients with a peak VO2 greater than the ISHLT cut-off. In other words, HFrEF patients with low peak VO2 but normal STVR have other reasons that contribute to the low peak VO2, such as deconditioning and anemia, which may improve with interventions such as cardiac rehabilitation and improved nutritional status. Thus, cross-classification of HFrEF patients using both STVR and peak VO2 may identify patients with “reversible” factors (low peak VO2 with normal STVR) whose overall prognosis can improve while identifying patients with poor cardiac reserve who remain at high risk for 1-year events despite their seemingly adequate exercise tolerance (adequate peak VO2 with abnormal STVR).

Methodologic Considerations and Future Directions

Our study contains several limitations. First, this is a single center retrospective cohort study and thus our observations need to be validated in other centers with larger patient samples to confirm our results. Our patient population was predominantly older males with coronary artery disease. That being said, our patient population is not dissimilar to other studies evaluating HFrEF patients (2, 28, 39). Second, we did not confirm our estimates of SV with noninvasive nor invasive determinations of CO. Confirmation with direct measures of CO will help confirm whether inappropriate increase in CO is the underlying reason for why STVR is able to identify patients at high risk for 1-year events. Third, the VE/VCO2 slope was not measured through the entire exercise period and instead, determined up to the AT. This was done by convention because of the known steepening of VE beyond the anaerobic threshold for ventilatory compensation for metabolic acidosis (14). However, other studies have shown additional clinical information with use of all exercise data and therefore, there is a possibility that VE/VCO2 slope calculated from data throughout the exercise period would show further predictive value (40, 41). Finally, this study was conducted using treadmill exercise only (preferred modality in the United States (14)) and thus it is unknown whether the same conclusions can be made in CPETs using a stationary cycle ergometer.

Future studies using STVR should be considered in other patient populations with heart-failure, specifically heart-failure with preserved ejection fraction and congenital heart disease patients. Additionally, it would be interesting to evaluate whether STVR can accurately identify HFrEF patients who can significantly increase their peak VO2 after cardiac rehabilitation. Finally, this study was conducted during the transition to the heart allocation change by UNOS that took place in November 2018. Future studies will have to take this into consideration as we would expect it change the time to heart-transplantation in ambulatory HFrEF patients.

Conclusion

STVR is a novel CPET parameter that better predicts 1-year prognosis than peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope and AT VO2 in HFrEF patients. Our STVR risk score using cut-off values consisting of STVR≤1.3, peak VO2below the ISHLT cut-off, and cardiac index≤2 shows improved prognostic accuracy compared to currently used risk scores such as SHFM, HFSS and the Kato model score. Therefore, STVR should be considered when evaluating HFrEF patients for advanced therapies.

Data Availability

The data referred to in the manuscript is available and can be obtained by emailing iselevany{at}health.ucsd.edu

Disclosures

None.

Supplementary Table and Figures

View this table:
Table S1.

Clinical Characteristics between Normal and Abnormal SVTR Groups

Figure S1.
Figure S1.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves of HFrEF patients with peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off (solid line) in comparison to patients with peak VO2 above the ISHLT cut-off and with abnormal STVR (gray line). No significant differences were present in the event free survival between the two groups.

Figure S2.
Figure S2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves of HFrEF patients with peak VO2 greater than the ISHLT cut-off (solid black line) in comparison to patients with peak VO2 below the ISHLT cut-off and with normal STVR (dotted black line). No significant differences were present in the event free survival between the two groups.

Figure S3.
Figure S3.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing the cross-classification of the patient population into four groups based on the peak VO2 below/above ISHLT cut-off and STVR below/above 1.3. Patients with normal STVR showed the best event free survival regardless of their peak VO2.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Cohn JN, Archibald DG, Ziesche S, Franciosa JA, Harston WE, Tristani FE, et al. Effect of vasodilator therapy on mortality in chronic congestive heart failure. Results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(24):1547–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993–1004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Shen L, Jhund PS, McMurray JJV. Declining Risk of Sudden Death in Heart Failure. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1794–5.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Fang JC, Ewald GA, Allen LA, Butler J, Westlake Canary CA, Colvin-Adams M, et al. Advanced (stage D) heart failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Society of America Guidelines Committee. J Card Fail. 2015;21(6):519–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, Cinquegrani MP, Feldman AM, Francis GS, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation; Endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation. 2001;104(24):2996–3007.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Crespo-Leiro MG, Metra M, Lund LH, Milicic D, Costanzo MR, Filippatos G, et al. Advanced heart failure: a position statement of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(11):1505–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, Semigran MJ, Uber PA, Baran DA, et al. The 2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: A 10-year update. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35(1):1–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Lang CC, Agostoni P, Mancini DM. Prognostic significance and measurement of exercise-derived hemodynamic variables in patients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2007;13(8):672–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Maurer MS, Schulze PC. Exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: shifting focus from the heart to peripheral skeletal muscle. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(2):129–31.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    Haykowsky MJ, Brubaker PH, Stewart KP, Morgan TM, Eggebeen J, Kitzman DW. Effect of endurance training on the determinants of peak exercise oxygen consumption in elderly patients with stable compensated heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(2):120–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Gmada N. A-HB, Haj Sassi R., Abdel Samia B., Bouhlel E. Relationship between oxygen pulse and arteriovenous oxygen difference in healthy subjects: Effect of exercise intensity. Science & Sports. 2019:10.
  12. 12.↵
    Chomsky DB, Lang CC, Rayos GH, Shyr Y, Yeoh TK, Pierson RN, 3rd, et al. Hemodynamic exercise testing. A valuable tool in the selection of cardiac transplantation candidates. Circulation. 1996;94(12):3176–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Metra M, Faggiano P, D’Aloia A, Nodari S, Gualeni A, Raccagni D, et al. Use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing with hemodynamic monitoring in the prognostic assessment of ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(4):943–50.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Balady GJ, Arena R, Sietsema K, Myers J, Coke L, Fletcher GF, et al. Clinician’s Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122(2):191–225.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Wilson JR, Rayos G, Yeoh TK, Gothard P. Dissociation between peak exercise oxygen consumption and hemodynamic dysfunction in potential heart transplant candidates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26(2):429–35.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Stringer WW, Hansen JE, Wasserman K. Cardiac output estimated noninvasively from oxygen uptake during exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1997;82(3):908–12.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Cohen-Solal A, Benessiano J, Himbert D, Paillole C, Gourgon R. Ventilatory threshold during exercise in patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure: determination, relation with lactate threshold and reproducibility. Int J Cardiol. 1991;30(3):321–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Dhakal BP, Malhotra R, Murphy RM, Pappagianopoulos PP, Baggish AL, Weiner RB, et al. Mechanisms of exercise intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the role of abnormal peripheral oxygen extraction. Circ Heart Fail. 2015;8(2):286–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.
    Detry JM, Rousseau M, Vandenbroucke G, Kusumi F, Brasseur LA, Bruce RA. Increased arteriovenous oxygen difference after physical training in coronary heart disease. Circulation. 1971;44(1):109–18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Higginbotham MB, Morris KG, Williams RS, McHale PA, Coleman RE, Cobb FR. Regulation of stroke volume during submaximal and maximal upright exercise in normal man. Circ Res. 1986;58(2):281–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Cattadori G, Salvioni E, Gondoni E, Agostoni P. Evaluation of noninvasive exercise cardiac output determination in chronic heart failure patients: a proposal of a new diagnostic and prognostic method. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011;12(1):19–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Sun XG, Hansen JE, Ting H, Chuang ML, Stringer WW, Adame D, et al. Comparison of exercise cardiac output by the Fick principle using oxygen and carbon dioxide. Chest. 2000;118(3):631–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    Johnson BD, Beck KC, Proctor DN, Miller J, Dietz NM, Joyner MJ. Cardiac output during exercise by the open circuit acetylene washin method: comparison with direct Fick. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000;88(5):1650–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.
    Charloux A, Lonsdorfer-Wolf E, Richard R, Lampert E, Oswald-Mammosser M, Mettauer B, et al. A new impedance cardiograph device for the non-invasive evaluation of cardiac output at rest and during exercise: comparison with the “direct” Fick method. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000;82(4):313–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Crawford MH, Petru MA, Rabinowitz C. Effect of isotonic exercise training on left ventricular volume during upright exercise. Circulation. 1985;72(6):1237–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The inconsistency of “optimal” cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(7):670–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Coffin M, Sukhatme S. Receiver operating characteristic studies and measurement errors. Biometrics. 1997;53(3):823–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Kato TS, Stevens GR, Jiang J, Schulze PC, Gukasyan N, Lippel M, et al. Risk stratification of ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure undergoing evaluation for heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32(3):333–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    Levy WC, Mozaffarian D, Linker DT, Sutradhar SC, Anker SD, Cropp AB, et al. The Seattle heart failure model - Prediction of survival in heart failure. Circulation. 2006;113(11):1424–33.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 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(12):2660–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.
    Koelling TM, Joseph S, Aaronson KD. Heart failure survival score continues to predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure receiving beta-blockers. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23(12):1414–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    Goda A, Lund LH, Mancini DM. Comparison across races of peak oxygen consumption and heart failure survival score for selection for cardiac transplantation. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(10):1439–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Diller GP, Giardini A, Dimopoulos K, Gargiulo G, Muller J, Derrick G, et al. Predictors of morbidity and mortality in contemporary Fontan patients: results from a multicenter study including cardiopulmonary exercise testing in 321 patients. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(24):3073–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Williams SG, Cooke GA, Wright DJ, Parsons WJ, Riley RL, Marshall P, et al. Peak exercise cardiac power output; a direct indicator of cardiac function strongly predictive of prognosis in chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2001;22(16):1496–503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Laukkanen JA, Kurl S, Salonen JT, Lakka TA, Rauramaa R. Peak oxygen pulse during exercise as a predictor for coronary heart disease and all cause death. Heart. 2006;92(9):1219–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    Oliveira RB, Myers J, Araujo CG, Arena R, Mandic S, Bensimhon D, et al. Does peak oxygen pulse complement peak oxygen uptake in risk stratifying patients with heart failure?Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(4):554–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Agostoni P, Corra U, Cattadori G, Veglia F, Battaia E, La Gioia R, et al. Prognostic value of indeterminable anaerobic threshold in heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(5):977–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Goda A, Williams P, Mancini D, Lund LH. Selecting patients for heart transplantation: comparison of the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) and the Seattle heart failure model (SHFM). J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30(11):1236–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Gitt AK, Wasserman K, Kilkowski C, Kleemann T, Kilkowski A, Bangert M, et al. Exercise anaerobic threshold and ventilatory efficiency identify heart failure patients for high risk of early death. Circulation. 2002;106(24):3079–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    Arena R, Myers J, Aslam SS, Varughese EB, Peberdy MA. Technical considerations related to the minute ventilation/carbon dioxide output slope in patients with heart failure. Chest. 2003;124(2):720–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    Ingle L, Goode K, Carroll S, Sloan R, Boyes C, Cleland JG, et al. Prognostic value of the VE/VCO2 slope calculated from different time intervals in patients with suspected heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2007;118(3):350–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted December 27, 2019.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Stroke Volume Reserve Is an Independent Predictor of Survival and Need for Advanced Therapies in Systolic Heart Failure Patients
Ibrahim Selevany, Timothy Morris, Florin Vaida, Eric D. Adler, Barry H. Greenberg, Paul J. Kim
medRxiv 2019.12.21.19015610; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.21.19015610
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area