Heart Failure Impairs Muscle Blood Flow and Endurance Exercise Tolerance in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart failure, a prevalent and disabling co-morbidity of COPD, may impair cardiac output and muscle blood flow thereby contributing to exercise intolerance. To investigate the role of impaired central and peripheral hemodynamics in limiting exercise tolerance in COPD-heart failure overlap, cycle ergometer exercise tests at 20% and 80% peak work rate were performed by overlap (FEV1 = 56.9 ± 15.9% predicted, ejection fraction = 32.5 ± 6.9%; N = 16), FEV1-matched COPD (N = 16), ejection fraction-matched heart failure patients (N = 15) and controls (N = 12). Differences (Δ) in cardiac output (impedance cardiography) and vastus lateralis blood flow (indocyanine green) and deoxygenation (near-infrared spectroscopy) between work rates were expressed relative to concurrent changes in muscle metabolic demands (ΔO2 uptake). Overlap patients had approximately 30% lower endurance exercise tolerance than COPD and heart failure (p < 0.05). ΔBlood flow was closely proportional to Δcardiac output in all groups (r = 0.89-0.98; p < 0.01). Overlap showed the largest impairments in Δcardiac output/ΔO2 uptake and Δblood flow/ΔO2 uptake (p < 0.05). Systemic arterial oxygenation, however, was preserved in overlap compared to COPD. Blunted limb perfusion was related to greater muscle deoxygenation and lactate concentration in overlap (r = 0.78 and r = 0.73, respectively; p < 0.05). ΔBlood flow/ΔO2 uptake was related to time to exercise intolerance only in overlap and heart failure (p < 0.01). In conclusion, COPD and heart failure add to decrease exercising cardiac output and skeletal muscle perfusion to a greater extent than that expected by heart failure alone. Treatment strategies that increase muscle O2 delivery and/or decrease O2 demand may be particularly helpful to improve exercise tolerance in COPD patients presenting heart failure as co-morbidity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".