Sydó, Tibor

Introduction: Exercise parameters such as peak heart rate (HR) are generally adjusted for age, whereas HR recovery is generally given as an absolute value: < 13 bpm at 1 minute post-peak exercise being abnormal. Hypothesis: We analyzed a large cohort of patients to determine the impact of age on HR recovery (HRRec) and if the prognostic performance of HRRec is improved by adjustment for age. Methods: Non-imaging exercise tests performed on patients aged 30-79 years from 1993 to 2010 were included. Patients with known cardiovascular diseases were excluded. Patients were assigned to 5 groups according to age: 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70-79. Mortality was reported according to HRRec during the first minute of active recovery using Cox regression analysis. Mortality was determined from Minnesota and National Death Indices. Results: 22,643 patients (64 % male) were included. The median HRRec in the age groups with IQR were as follows: 30-39: 20 [15-26]; 40-49: 19 [14-25]; 50-59: 18 [13-23]; 60-69: 15 [10-20]; and 70-79: 11 [6-16]. There were 1566 deaths (6.9%) over a mean follow-up of 11.8 ± 5.0 years. HRRec of 13 would fall at the 17 th percentile for patients 30-39 years old, but this increased to the 20 th , 27 th , 40 th , and 60 th percentiles with increasing age group. The mortality in age groups according to HRRec is shown in the Figure. For age groups 30-39 and 40-49, the hazard ratio for mortality at a HRRec of 11-12 bpm (i.e. just below the standard of 13) versus patients with a HRRec of ≥ 20 bpm was > 2.0. For age 50-59 and 60-69, however, a HRRec of < 11 bpm is necessary to obtain a doubling of risk, and for age 70-79 a HRRec of < 9 bpm is necessary. Conclusions: HRRec decreases significantly with age. The performance of abnormal HRRec defined as < 13 bpm is inconsistent across age groups. To standardize the ability of HRRec to identify at least a 2.0-fold increased risk, lowering the cup-point to < 11 bpm for ages 50-59 and 60-69 and < 9 bpm for age 70-79 is required.

Abstract Introduction Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is an important diagnostic method to evaluate athletes and non-athletes, however we do not have widely accepted normal values for correct evaluation and interpretation in the young. Goals Our aim was to compare CPET parameters of young athletes and non-athletes and determine reference values. Methods Exercise tests were performed in young non-athletes, aged <18 years between 2011 to 2016 at Mayo Clinic. Athletes underwent detailed sports cardiology screening including CPET at Semmelweis University Heart and Vascular Center between 2016 and 2018. Individuals with cardiovascular disease were excluded. We created 2 subgroups in both sexes: 12–14 years (Group 1), 15–17 years (Group 2). Statistical analysis was performed using SAS with analysis of variance under the general linear model adjusting for age, body mass index and test effort based on peak respiratory exchange ratio (RER). Results A total of 212 athletes (92% male, 15.5±0.6ys) and 207 non-athletes (68% male, 15.0±0.7ys) were included in the analysis. In Group 1 boys, athletes have higher peak HR (200.0±9.2 vs 188.5±16.8 bpm, p<0.0001), HR reserve (117.1±14.5 vs 108.9±19.8 bpm p<0.05), VO2 max (53.7±6.6 vs 44.7±9.1 mL/kg/min p<0.0001), ventilation (VE) (120.3±25.0 vs 70.7±21.6 L/min p<0.0001) and RER (1.12±0.0 vs 1.07±0.08, p <.001) compared to controls. In Group 2 boys, there was no difference in peak HR and HR reserve, but athletes have higher VO2 max (57.2±4.7 vs 45.3±9.3 mL/kg/min, p<0.0001) and VE (150.7±23.7 vs 104.1±25.9 L/min, p<0.0001), similarly as Group 2 girls: VO2 max (46.3±3.6 vs 34.9±8.5 mL/kg/min p<0.0001), VE (118.7±12.5 vs 68.4±20.6 L/min, p<0.0001). In male athletes, peak HR (200.6±9.2 vs 196.5±7.4 bpm p<0.05) and HR recovery (34.2±9.8 vs 29.8±11.1 bpm p<0.05) decreases with age, while VO2 max (53.7±6.6 vs 57.2±4.7 mL/kg/min, p<0.001) and VE (120.3±24.9 vs 150.7±23.7 L/min, p<0.0001) increases. Lower cut-off values were determined in each group (Figure). Lower-cut off values Conclusion We created a unique Mayo-Semmelweis database of young athletes and non-athletes. As a result of intensive training, athletes show higher levels of CPET variables vs non-athletes. Our study provides CPET reference values in the pediatric age group, applying them could contribute to correct evaluation and interpretation of CPET, increasing its diagnostic potential.

Abstract BACKGROUND A decrease in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) with exercise is considered normal, but the significance of an increase in DBP has not been validated. Our aim was to determine the relationship of DBP increasing on a stress test regarding comorbidities and mortality. METHODS Our database was reviewed from 1993 to 2010 using the first stress test of a patient. Non-Minnesota residence, baseline cardiovascular (CV) disease, rest DBP &lt;60 or &gt;100 mm Hg, and age &lt;30 or ≥80 were exclusion criteria. DBP response was classified: normal if peak DBP–rest DBP &lt; 0, borderline 0–9, and abnormal ≥10 mm Hg. Mortality was determined from Mayo Clinic records and Minnesota Death Index. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship of DBP response to the presence of comorbidities. Cox regression was used to determine total and CV mortality risk by DBP response. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and resting DBP. RESULTS Twenty thousand seven hundred sixty patients were included (51 ± 11 years, female n = 7,314). Rest/peak averaged DBP 82 ± 8/69 ± 15 mm Hg in normal vs. 79 ± 9/82 ± 9 mm Hg in borderline vs. 76 ± 9/92 ± 11 mm Hg in abnormal DBP response. There were 1,582 deaths (8%) with 557 (3%) CV deaths over 12 ± 5 years of follow-up. In patients with borderline and abnormal DBP response, odds ratios for obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and current smoking were significant, while hazard ratios for total and CV death were not significant compared with patients with normal DBP response. CONCLUSIONS DBP response to exercise is significantly associated with important comorbidities at the time of the stress test but does not add to the prognostic yield of stress test.

Background Heart rate ( HR ) recovery has been investigated in specific patient cohorts, but there is less information about the role of HR recovery in general populations. We investigated whether HR recovery has long‐term prognostic significance in primary prevention. Methods and Results Exercise tests performed between 1993 and 2010 on patients aged 30 to 79 years without cardiovascular disease were included. Mortality was determined from Mayo Clinic records and Minnesota Death Index. Total, cardiovascular , and non‐cardiovascular mortality was reported according to HR recovery <13 bpm using Cox regression. 19 551 patients were included, 6756 women (35%), age 51±10 years. There were 1271 deaths over follow‐up of 12±5 years. HR recovery declined after age 60, and was also lower according to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, current smoking, and poor cardiorespiratory fitness but not sex or β‐blockers. Adjusting for these factors, abnormal HR recovery was a significant predictor of total (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]=1.56 [1.384–1.77]), cardiovascular (1.95 [1.57–2.42]), and non‐cardiovascular death (1.41 [1.22–1.64]). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular death according to abnormal HR recovery were significant in all age groups (30–59, 60–69, 70–79), in both sexes, in patients with and without hypertension, obesity, and diabetes mellitus, but not in patients taking β‐blockers, current smokers, and patients with normal cardiorespiratory fitness. Conclusions HR recovery is a powerful prognostic factor predicting total, cardiovascular, and non‐cardiovascular death in a primary prevention cohort. It performs consistently well according to sex, age, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus but shows diminished utility in patients taking β‐blockers, current smokers, and patients with normal cardiorespiratory fitness.