Exercise intolerance in comorbid COPD and heart failure: the role of impaired aerobic function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impaired aerobic function is a potential mechanism of exercise intolerance in patients with combined cardiorespiratory disease. We investigated the pathophysiological and sensory consequences of a low change in oxygen uptake (ΔV′O2)/change in work rate (ΔWR) relationship during incremental exercise in patients with coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and systolic heart failure (HF). After clinical stabilisation, 51 COPD–HF patients performed an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test to symptom limitation. Cardiac output was non-invasively measured (impedance cardiography) in a subset of patients (n=18). 27 patients presented with ΔV′O2/ΔWR below the lower limit of normal. Despite similar forced expiratory volume in 1 s and ejection fraction, the low ΔV′O2/ΔWR group showed higher end-diastolic volume, lower inspiratory capacity and lower transfer factor compared to their counterparts (p<0.05). Peak WR and peakV′O2were ∼15% and ∼30% lower, respectively, in the former group: those findings were associated with greater symptom burden in daily life and at a given exercise intensity (leg discomfort and dyspnoea). The low ΔV′O2/ΔWR group presented with other evidences of impaired aerobic function (sluggishV′O2kinetics, earlier anaerobic threshold) and cardiocirculatory performance (lower oxygen pulse, lower stroke volume and cardiac output) (p<0.05). Despite similar exertional hypoxaemia, they showed worse ventilatory inefficiency and higher operating lung volumes, which led to greater mechanical inspiratory constraints (p<0.05). Impaired aerobic function due to negative cardiopulmonary–muscular interactions is an important determinant of exercise intolerance in patients with COPD–HF. Treatment strategies to improve oxygen delivery to and/or utilisation by the peripheral muscles might prove particularly beneficial to these patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".