RESUMO
Abstract Background: Several hemodynamic and respiratory variables measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) have been shown to predict survival. One such measure is the cardiorespiratory optimal point (COP) that reflects the best possible circulation-respiration interaction, but there are still limited data on its relationship with adverse outcomes. Objective: To assess the association between COP and cardiovascular mortality in men aged 46 to 70 years. Methods: A sample of 2201 men who had anthropometric, clinical, and COP data obtained during cycling CPX between 1995 and 2022 was extracted from the CLINIMEX Exercise cohort. COP was identified as the minimal minute-to-minute VE/VO2 during CPX. Vital data were censored on October 31, 2022 for ICD-10-identified cardiovascular deaths. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: The mean ± standard deviation age was 57 ± 6 years and the median COP value was 24 (interquartile range = 21.2 to 27.4). During a mean follow-up of 4688 ± 2416 days, 129 (5.6%) patients died from cardiovascular causes. The death rates for low (< 28), high (28 to 30), and very high (> 30) categories of COP were 3.2%, 9.6%, and 18.7%, respectively. Following adjustment for age, history of myocardial infarction, diagnosis of coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus, the HR (95% CI) for cardiovascular mortality comparing very high versus low COP was 2.76 (1.87 to 4.07; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data indicate that, for a general population-based sample of men, COP > 30 represents a considerably higher risk for cardiovascular death. Information on COP could assist cardiovascular risk assessment in men.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent syndrome, with exercise intolerance being one of its hallmarks, contributing to worse quality of life and mortality. High-intensity interval training is an emerging training option, but its efficacy in HFpEF patients is still unknown. DESIGN: Single-blinded randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Single-blinded randomized clinical trial with exercise training 3 days per week for 12 weeks. HFpEF patients were randomly assigned to high-intensity interval training or moderate continuous training. At baseline and after 12 week follow-up, patients underwent clinical assessment, echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). RESULTS: Mean age was 60 ± 9 years and 63% were women. Both groups (N = 19) showed improved peak oxygen consumption (VO2), but high-intensity interval training patients (n = 10) had a significantly higher increase, of 22%, compared with 11% in the moderate continuous training (n = 9) individuals (3.5 (3.1 to 4.0) vs. 1.9 (1.2 to 2.5) mL·kg-1·min-1, p < 0.001). Ventilatory efficiency and other CPET measures, as well as quality of life score, increased equally in the two groups. Left ventricular diastolic function also improved with training, reflected by a significant reduction in E/e' ratio by echocardiography (-2.6 (-4.3 to -1.0) vs. -2.2 (-3.6 to -0.9) for high-intensity interval training and moderate continuous training, respectively; p < 0.01). There were no exercise-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized clinical trial provided evidence that high-intensity interval training is a potential exercise modality for HFpEF patients, being more effective than moderate continuous training in improving peak VO2. However, the two strategies were equally effective in improving ventilatory efficiency and other CPET parameters, quality of life score and diastolic function after 3 months of training.