Publikationen zum Thema Spiroergometrie
In der Tabelle finden Sie eine umfangreiche Übersicht über nationale und internationale Publikationen/Artikel, in denen CORTEX-Systeme vorgestellt und verwendet werden.
Einige Artikel stehen als PDF zum Download zur Verfügung. Andere Beiträge werden mit einem Abstrakt vorgestellt. Hierbei wird auf den Herausgeber und die Autoren verwiesen.
- Nr Titel Autoren/Institut Segement Produkt
- 2017-060 Physiological dead space and arterial carbon dioxide contributions to exercise ventilatory inefficiency in patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction heart failure. Van Iterson EH, Johnson BD, Borlaug BA, Olson TP
AIMS:
Patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction demonstrate an increased ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇E /V̇CO2 ) slope. The physiological correlates of the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope remain unclear in the two HF phenotypes. We hypothesized that changes in the physiological dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD /VT ) and arterial CO2 tension (PaCO2 ) differentially contribute to the V̇E /V̇CO2 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. PaCO2 was measured via radial arterial catheterization. We calculated the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope via linear regression, and VD /VT = 1 - [(863 × V̇CO2 )/(V̇E × PaCO2 )]. Resting VD /VT (0.48 ± 0.08 vs. 0.41 ± 0.11; P = 0.04), but not PaCO2 (38 ± 5 mmHg vs. 40 ± 3 mmHg; P = 0.21) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. Peak exercise VD /VT (0.39 ± 0.08 vs. 0.32 ± 0.12; P = 0.02) and PaCO2 (33 ± 6 mmHg vs. 38 ± 4 mmHg; P < 0.01) differed between HFrEF and HFpEF. The V̇E /V̇CO2 slope was higher in HFrEF compared with HFpEF (44 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 8; P < 0.01). Variance associated with the V̇E /V̇CO2 slope in HFrEF and HFpEF was explained by peak exercise VD /VT (R(2) = 0.30 and R(2) = 0.50, respectively) and PaCO2 (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 V̇E /V̇CO2 slope and both VD /VT and PaCO2 are robust, but differ between HFpEF and HFrEF. Increasing V̇E /V̇CO2 slope appears to be strongly explained by mechanisms influential in regulating PaCO2 in HFrEF, which contrasts with the strong role of increased VD /VT in HFpEF.
zurück zur Übersicht