These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Estimating exercise PaCO2 in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
    Author: Balmain BN, Tomlinson AR, MacNamara JP, Sarma S, Levine BD, Hynan LS, Babb TG.
    Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985); 2022 Jan 01; 132(1):36-45. PubMed ID: 34762529.
    Abstract:
    Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit cardiopulmonary abnormalities that could affect the predictability of exercise [Formula: see text] from the Jones corrected partial pressure of end-tidal CO2 (PJCO2) equation (PJCO2 = 5.5 + 0.9 × [Formula: see text] - 2.1 × VT). Since the dead space to tidal volume (VD/VT) calculation also includes [Formula: see text] measurements, estimates of VD/VT from PJCO2 may also be affected. Because using noninvasive estimates of [Formula: see text] and VD/VT could save patient discomfort, time, and cost, we examined whether partial pressure of end-tidal CO2 ([Formula: see text]) and PJCO2 can be used to estimate [Formula: see text] and VD/VT in 13 patients with HFpEF. [Formula: see text] was measured from expired gases measured simultaneously with radial arterial blood gases at rest, constant-load (20 W), and peak exercise. VD/VT[art] was calculated using the Enghoff modification of the Bohr equation, and estimates of VD/VT were calculated using [Formula: see text] (VD/VT[ET]) and PJCO2 (VD/VT[J]) in place of [Formula: see text]. [Formula: see text] was similar to [Formula: see text] at rest (-1.46 ± 2.63, P = 0.112) and peak exercise (0.66 ± 2.56, P = 0.392), but overestimated [Formula: see text] at 20 W (-2.09 ± 2.55, P = 0.020). PJCO2 was similar to [Formula: see text] at rest (-1.29 ± 2.57, P = 0.119) and 20 W (-1.06 ± 2.29, P = 0.154), but underestimated [Formula: see text] at peak exercise (1.90 ± 2.13, P = 0.009). VD/VT[ET] was similar to VD/VT[art] at rest (-0.01 ± 0.03, P = 0.127) and peak exercise (0.01 ± 0.04, P = 0.210), but overestimated VD/VT[art] at 20 W (-0.02 ± 0.03, P = 0.025). Although VD/VT[J] was similar to VD/VT[art] at rest (-0.01 ± 0.03, P = 0.156) and 20 W (-0.01 ± 0.03, P = 0.133), VD/VT[J] underestimated VD/VT[art] at peak exercise (0.03 ± 0.04, P = 0.013). Exercise [Formula: see text] and VD/VT[ET] provides better estimates of [Formula: see text] and VD/VT[art] than PJCO2 and VD/VT[J] does at peak exercise. Thus, estimates of [Formula: see text] and VD/VT should only be used if sampling arterial blood during CPET is not feasible.NEW & NOTEWORTHY [Formula: see text] provides a better estimate of [Formula: see text] than PJCO2 at peak exercise, and VD/VT[ET] provides a better estimate of VD/VT[art] than VD/VT[J] at peak exercise. Although we reported significant correlations, we did not find an identity between [Formula: see text] and estimates of [Formula: see text], nor did we find an identity between VD/VT[art] and estimates of VD/VT[art]. Thus, caution should be taken and estimates of [Formula: see text] and VD/VT should only be used if sampling arterial blood during CPET is not feasible.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]