Cargando…
Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation
OBJECTIVE: Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR), defined as diastolic to systolic pressure-time integral ratio, is a useful tool reflecting the balance between coronary perfusion and arterial load. Suboptimal SEVR creating a supply–demand imbalance may limit favorable cardiac response to cardiac re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Kare Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27443478 http://dx.doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7009 |
_version_ | 1782510274393145344 |
---|---|
author | Aslanger, Emre Assous, Benjamin Bihry, Nicolas Beauvais, Florence Logeart, Damien Cohen-Solal, Alain |
author_facet | Aslanger, Emre Assous, Benjamin Bihry, Nicolas Beauvais, Florence Logeart, Damien Cohen-Solal, Alain |
author_sort | Aslanger, Emre |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR), defined as diastolic to systolic pressure-time integral ratio, is a useful tool reflecting the balance between coronary perfusion and arterial load. Suboptimal SEVR creating a supply–demand imbalance may limit favorable cardiac response to cardiac rehabilitation (CR). To explore this hypothesis, we designed a study to analyze the relationship between baseline SEVR and response to CR in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In this prospectively study, after baseline arterial tonometry, echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs), patients undergone 20 sessions of CR. Post-CR echocardiographic and CPET measurements were obtained for comparison. RESULTS: Final study population was comprised of fifty subjects. Study population was divided into two subgroups by median SEVR value (1.45, interquartile range 0.38). Although both groups showed significant improvements in peak VO(2), significant improvements in oxygen pulse (πO(2)) (from 16.1±3.4 to 19.1±4.8 mL O(2).kg(–1).beat(–1); p<0.001) and stroke volume index (from 31±5 to 35±6 mL; p=0.008) were observed in only the patients in the above-median subgroup. The change in πO(2) was also significantly higher in the above-median SEVR subgroup (2.9±3.3 vs. 0.5±2.4; p=0.007). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that baseline supply–demand imbalance may limit systolic improvement response to CR in patients with CAD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5324860 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Kare Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53248602017-06-28 Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation Aslanger, Emre Assous, Benjamin Bihry, Nicolas Beauvais, Florence Logeart, Damien Cohen-Solal, Alain Anatol J Cardiol Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: Subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR), defined as diastolic to systolic pressure-time integral ratio, is a useful tool reflecting the balance between coronary perfusion and arterial load. Suboptimal SEVR creating a supply–demand imbalance may limit favorable cardiac response to cardiac rehabilitation (CR). To explore this hypothesis, we designed a study to analyze the relationship between baseline SEVR and response to CR in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In this prospectively study, after baseline arterial tonometry, echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs), patients undergone 20 sessions of CR. Post-CR echocardiographic and CPET measurements were obtained for comparison. RESULTS: Final study population was comprised of fifty subjects. Study population was divided into two subgroups by median SEVR value (1.45, interquartile range 0.38). Although both groups showed significant improvements in peak VO(2), significant improvements in oxygen pulse (πO(2)) (from 16.1±3.4 to 19.1±4.8 mL O(2).kg(–1).beat(–1); p<0.001) and stroke volume index (from 31±5 to 35±6 mL; p=0.008) were observed in only the patients in the above-median subgroup. The change in πO(2) was also significantly higher in the above-median SEVR subgroup (2.9±3.3 vs. 0.5±2.4; p=0.007). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that baseline supply–demand imbalance may limit systolic improvement response to CR in patients with CAD. Kare Publishing 2017-01 2016-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5324860/ /pubmed/27443478 http://dx.doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7009 Text en Copyright © 2017 Turkish Society of Cardiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Aslanger, Emre Assous, Benjamin Bihry, Nicolas Beauvais, Florence Logeart, Damien Cohen-Solal, Alain Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title | Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title_full | Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title_fullStr | Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title_full_unstemmed | Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title_short | Baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
title_sort | baseline subendocardial viability ratio influences left ventricular systolic improvement with cardiac rehabilitation |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27443478 http://dx.doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7009 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aslangeremre baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation AT assousbenjamin baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation AT bihrynicolas baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation AT beauvaisflorence baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation AT logeartdamien baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation AT cohensolalalain baselinesubendocardialviabilityratioinfluencesleftventricularsystolicimprovementwithcardiacrehabilitation |