A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Development of a cardiopulmonary exercise prognostic score for optimizing risk stratification in heart failure: the (P)e(R)i(O)dic (B)reathing during (E)xercise (PROBE) study. | LitMetric

Background: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides powerful information on risk of death in heart failure (HF). We sought to define the relative and additive contribution of the 3 landmark (CPET) prognostic markers--peak oxygen consumption (VO₂), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO₂) slope, and exercise periodic breathing (EPB)-to the overall risk of cardiac death and to develop a prognostic score for optimizing risk stratification in HF patients.

Methods And Results: A total of 695 stable HF patients (average LVEF: 25 ± 8%) underwent a symptom-limited CPET maximum test after familiarization and were prospectively tracked for cardiac mortality. At multivariable Cox analysis EPB emerged as the strongest prognosticator. Using a statistical bootstrap technique (5000 data resamplings), point estimates, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained. Thirty-two configurations were adopted to classify patients into a given cell, according to EPB presence or absence and values of the 2 other covariates. Configurations without EPB and with VE/VCO₂ slope ≤30 were not significantly different from 0 (reference value). Statistical power of configurations increased with higher VE/VCO₂ slope and lower peak VO₂. This prompted us to formulate a score including EPB as a discriminating variable, the (P)e(R)i(O)dic (B)reathing during (E)xercise (PROBE), which ranges between -1 and 1, with zero as reference configuration, that would help to optimize the prognostic accuracy of CPET-derived variables. The greatest PROBE score impact was provided by EPB, followed by VE/VCO₂ slope, whereas peak VO₂ added minimal prognostic power.

Conclusions: EPB with an elevated VE/VCO₂ slope leads to the highest and most precise PROBE score, whereas no additional risk information emerges when EPB is present with a peak VO₂ ≤10 mL O₂·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹. PROBE score appears to provide a step forward for optimizing CPET use in HF prognostic definition.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2010.04.014DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ve/vco₂ slope
20
periodic breathing
12
peak vo₂
12
probe score
12
cardiopulmonary exercise
8
prognostic score
8
score optimizing
8
optimizing risk
8
risk stratification
8
heart failure
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!