4.6 Article

Respiratory muscle dysfunction in congestive heart failure-The role of pulmonary hypertension

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 150, Issue 2, Pages 182-185

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.04.006

Keywords

Congestive heart failure; Pulmonary hypertension; Respiratory muscles; Ventilatory drive

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Inspiratory muscle weakness has been described in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), and only recently in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. However, the relationship between pulmonary hemodynamics and respiratory muscle function has not been investigated in patients with CHF. Methods and results: In two tertial referral centers for CHF patients, 532 consecutive CHF patients (159 female, age 59 +/- 12 years, NYHA I-IV) were studied by right heart catheterization, maximal inspiratory mouth occlusion pressure (Pi(max)) and pressure 0.1 s after beginning of inspiration during tidal breathing at rest (P-0.1). There was a significant correlation between Pi(max) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAPm) (r=-0.65, p=0.0023), mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWPm) (r=-0.56; p=0.0018), PVR (r=-0.73; p=0.0031), and cardiac output (r=0.51; p=0.0022). Moreover, the ratio P-0.1/Pi(max) showed a linear correlation with PAPm (r=0.54; p=0.0019), and with TPG (r=0.64; p=0.0014) respectively. Vital capacity was reduced in relation to increased PAPm (r=-0.54; p=0.0029). Pi(max) and P-0.1/Pi(max) were independent from VC. Conclusions: This study provides the first evidence of a close relation between inspiratory muscle dysfunction, increased ventilatory drive and pulmonary hypertension in a large patient cohort with CHF. Pi(max) and P-0.1 can easily be measured in clinical routine and might become an additional parameter for the non-invasive monitoring of the hemodynamic severity of disease. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available