RESUMO
Objetivo: Comparar la capacidad predictiva de la prueba de ejercicio convencional (PECo) con la prueba de esfuerzo cardiopulmonar (PECP). Métodos: Se estudió una cohorte de 1,474 pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca. Se utilizó un equipo Schiller CS200 con protocolo de Balke modificado en rampa y se evaluaron las variables de la PECo y las agregadas por la PECP. Se comparó a ambos grupos mediante correlación y tablas de contingencia, considerando significación estocástica cuando p < 0.05. Resultados: El 80% fueron varones con edad promedio de 53 ± 15 años. Las causas más prevalentes de insuficiencia cardiaca fueron: cardiopatía isquémica (65%) y miocardiopatía dilatada (27%). La FEVI fue de 34 ± 10%, MET-carga de 6.3 ± 2 y el VO2 pico de 21 ± 7 mlO2/kg/min. Mediante la PECP se calificó a un 9% más de pacientes en riesgo elevado (87%) en comparación con la (78%), p < 0.001. Las variables con mayor peso para presentar elevado riesgo fueron: incompetencia cronotrópica (60%) y mala recuperación de VO2 (49%). La sensibilidad, especificidad y precisión de la PECo para detectar elevado riesgo, en comparación con PECP fue del 90, 100 y 91% respectivamente. El grado de acuerdo (kappa ponderada) fue de 0.7 (p < 0.001). Conclusión: La PECo tiene adecuada sensibilidad y especificidad para detectar a pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca de elevado riesgo con relación a la PECP. Su grado de acuerdo es significativo, pero no suficiente para considerarla una prueba subrogada.
Aim: To compare the predictive power of conventional exercise testing (CVET) vs cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Methods: A cohort study of 1,474 patients with heart failure was analyzed. We assessed variables of CVET and CPET. We used Schiller CS200 equipment with modified Balke protocol ramp. The comparison between groups was performed by correlation and contingency tables. It was considered stochastic significance when P < .05. Results: 80% of the patients were male with an average age of 53 ± 15 years. The most prevalent causes of heart failure were 65% for ischemic heart disease and 27% for dilated cardiomyopathy. Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 34 ± 10%, the workload were 6.3 ± 2 (87%) METs and VO2 peak was 21 ± 7mlO2/kg/min. CPET qualified 9% more patients at high risk compared to the 78% CVET, P < .001. The variables with more percentage at high risk were: 60% chronotropic incompetence and 49% VO2 recovery. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy CVET for detecting high-risk subjects, compared to the CPET was 90%, 100% and 91% respectively. Weighted kappa between two tests was 0.7 (P < .001). Conclusion: The CVET has adequate sensitivity and specificity to detect patients with heart failure at high risk relative to the CPET. The degree of agreement is significant, but not enough to consider it as a surrogated test.
Assuntos
Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Teste de Esforço , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Estudos de Coortes , Teste de Esforço/métodos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
AIM: To compare the predictive power of conventional exercise testing (CVET) vs cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). METHODS: A cohort study of 1,474 patients with heart failure was analyzed. We assessed variables of CVET and CPET. We used Schiller CS200 equipment with modified Balke protocol ramp. The comparison between groups was performed by correlation and contingency tables. It was considered stochastic significance when P<.05. RESULTS: 80% of the patients were male with an average age of 53±15 years. The most prevalent causes of heart failure were 65% for ischemic heart disease and 27% for dilated cardiomyopathy. Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was 34±10%, the workload were 6.3±2 (87%) METs and VO2 peak was 21±7mlO2/kg/min. CPET qualified 9% more patients at high risk compared to the 78% CVET, P<.001. The variables with more percentage at high risk were: 60% chronotropic incompetence and 49% VO2 recovery. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy CVET for detecting high-risk subjects, compared to the CPET was 90%, 100% and 91% respectively. Weighted kappa between two tests was 0.7 (P<.001). CONCLUSION: The CVET has adequate sensitivity and specificity to detect patients with heart failure at high risk relative to the CPET. The degree of agreement is significant, but not enough to consider it as a surrogated test.