Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Exertional oscillatory breathing (EOV) represents an emerging prognostic marker in heart failure (HF) patients, however little is known about EOV meaning with respect to its disappearance/persistence during cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). The present single-center study evaluated EOV clinical and prognostic impact in a large cohort of reduced ejection fraction HF patients (HFrEF) and, contextually, if a specific EOV temporal behavior might be an addictive risk predictor.
Methods And Results: Data from 1.866 HFrEF patients on optimized medical therapy were analysed. The primary cardiovascular (CV) study end-point was cardiovascular death, heart transplantation or LV assistance device (LVAD) implantation at 5-years. For completeness a secondary end-point of total mortality at 5- years was also explored. EOV presence was identified in 251 patients (13%): 142 characterized by EOV early cessation (Group A) and 109 by EOV persistence during the whole CPET (Group B). The entire EOV Group showed worse clinical and functional status than NoEOV Group (n = 1.615) and, within the EOV Group, Group B was characterized by a more severe HF. At CV survival analysis, EOV patients showed a poorer outcome than the NoEOV Group (events 27.1% versus 13.1%, p < 0.001) both unpolished and after matching for main confounders. Instead, no significant differences were found between EOV Group A and B with respect to CV outcome. Conversely the analysis for total mortality failed to be significant.
Conclusions: Our analysis, albeit retrospective, supports the inclusion of EOV into a CPET-centered clinical and prognostic evaluation of the HFrEF patients. EOV characterizes per se a more advanced HFrEF stage with an unfavorable CV outcome. However, the EOV persistence, albeit suggestive of a more severe HF, does not emerge as a further prognostic marker.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.05.008 | DOI Listing |