Mechanisms of reduced exercise capacity in breast cancer survivors compared to patients with HFpEF and controls: insights from comprehensive cardiopulmonary exercise testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The risk of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in breast cancer survivors (BCS) has been well characterized. Emerging evidence suggests BCS may also be at an increased risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Exercise intolerance – quantified objectively as reduced peak oxygen uptake (VO2) – is a cardinal manifestation of HFpEF and is also commonly reported by BCS. However, the mechanisms contributing to reduced peak VO2 in BCS with preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and phenotypic overlap with HFpEF, have not been definitively established. Purpose To compare variables measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive hemodynamic monitoring (iCPET) among BCS, non-cancer controls (CON), and HFpEF patients referred for exertional dyspnea evaluation. Methods We investigated consecutive female BCS (n=33, 67±9 years old, BMI: 26.9±6.1 kg/m2) who underwent iCPET (10.3±6.2 years post-diagnosis) at a single institution and performed 1:1 propensity-matching on the basis of age, sex, BMI, and presence of hypertension, to patients with confirmed HFpEF (n=33; 66±12 yrs old, BMI: 26.5±5.1 kg/m2), and CON (n=33; 65±9 yrs old, BMI: 27.9±5.0 kg/m2). Maximal upright iCPET with right-heart and radial arterial catheters was performed on an upright cycle ergometer to quantify arterio-venous oxygen content difference (Ca-vO2diff), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), Fick cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), and diffusive muscle O2 conductance (DmO2). Radionuclide ventriculography was used to assess LVEF. Results Relative to CON, both BCS and HFpEF patients had markedly reduced peak VO2 (Fig 1) with a similar degree of impairment between BCS and HFpEF. The lower peak VO2 in BCS and HFpEF was related to comparable deficits in peak exercise oxygen delivery vs CON (Fig 2). In BCS compared to CON, the lower CO was primarily driven by a lower maximal HR (Fig 1E), while in HFpEF this was more-so a result of lower SV (Fig 1F). Peak exercise Ca-vO2diff was similar between all three groups (Fig 1C) but given the increased transit time stemming from lower CO, DmO2 was also impaired in BCS and HFpEF (Fig 2). Compared to CON (1.0±0.4 mmHg/L/min) and HFpEF (3.2±2.0 mmHg/L/min), BCS showed a trend for an intermediate PCWP/CO slope (2.0±2.1 mmHg/L/min; P=0.056 vs CON; P<0.021 vs HFpEF). Seventeen BCS (52%) met diagnostic criteria for HFpEF (supine resting PCWP ≥15 mmHg and/or PCWP/CO slope values >2.0 mmHg/L/min). Conclusions BCS with preserved LVEF can present with marked exercise intolerance, secondary to impairments in central (impaired CO and O2 delivery, increased PCWP at rest and/or exercise) and peripheral factors (reduced DmO2) that show significant overlap with HFpEF pathophysiology. This highlights the importance of considering HFpEF as a cause of exercise intolerance in BCS and the utility of exercise assessments such as iCPET in the evaluation of these patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».