4.4 Article

Exercise capacity and exercise hypertension after surgical repair of isolated aortic coarctation

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 12, Pages 1777-1780

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.02.072

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are contradictory reports whether exercise capacity is reduced in patients on long-term follow-up after coarctation repair. Data from unselected patient groups are missing. In a cross-sectional, long-term follow-up study of a tertiary congenital cardiology referral center, 260 patients (30.2 +/- 11.4 years old, 84 women), after surgical repair for isolated aortic coarctation (age at surgery 11.5 +/- 11.2 years), underwent a symptom-limited exercise test. Peak workload was 180 +/- 52 W, significantly less than the age- and height-related reference values (p < 0.0005). A peak workload under 80% of expected was found in 200 patients (77%). Exercise performance of the patients was independent from age at surgery, type of surgery, or the systolic brachial-ankle blood pressure difference. The only exercise-limiting factor found was the chronic administration of diuretics to treat hypertension (p = 0.005). Exercise hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure > 2 SD above the load-dependent reference value, was found in 73 patients (28%). It was independently related to the systolic brachial-ankle blood pressure difference (p < 0.0005) and diuretics administration (p = 0.037). In conclusion, most patients after coarctation repair have a reduced exercise performance. This reduction is not related to the surgical results. Particularly, as these patients are at risk of early atherosclerosis, exercise should be promoted as primary prevention after restenosis, aortic or cerebral aneurysms, and severe exercise hypertension are ruled out. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available