Rest and latent obstruction in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

The Role of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

This review emphasizes the importance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In contrast to standard exercise testing and stress echoes, which are limited due to the ECG changes and wall motion abnormalities that characterize this condition, CPET allows for the assessment of the complex pathophysiology and severity of the disease, its mechanisms of functional limitation, and its risk stratification. It is useful tool to evaluate the risk for sudden cardiac death and select patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), cardiac transplantation, or mechanical circulatory support, especially when symptomatology and functional status are uncertain. It may help in differentiating HCM from other forms of cardiac hypertrophy, such as athletes' heart. Finally, it is used to guide and monitor therapy as well as for exercise prescription. It may be considered every 2 years in clinically stable patients or every year in patients with worsening symptoms. Although performed only in specialized centers, CPET combined with echocardiography (i.e., CPET imaging) and invasive CPET are more informative and provide a better assessment of cardiac functional status, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, and diastolic dysfunction during exercise in patients with HCM.

Application of non-invasive bioreactance to assess hemodynamic function in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Non-invasive technologies have become popular for the clinical evaluation of cardiac function. The present study evaluated hemodynamic response to cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing using bioreactance technology in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The study included 29 patients with HCM (age 55 ± 15 years; 28% female) and 12 age (55 ± 14 years), and gender matched (25% female) healthy controls. All participants underwent maximal graded cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing with simultaneous non-invasive hemodynamic bioreactance and gas exchange. At rest, patients with HCM demonstrated significantly lower cardiac output (4.1 ± 1.3 vs. 6.1 ± 1.2 L/min; p < 0.001), stroke volume (61.5 ± 20.8 vs. 89.5 ± 19.8 mL/beat; p < 0.001), and cardiac power output (0.97 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.3watt; p < 0.001), compared to controls. At peak exercise, the following hemodynamic and metabolic variables were lower in HCM patients that is, heart rate (118 ± 29 vs. 156 ± 20 beats/min; p < 0.001), cardiac output (15.5 ± 5.8 vs. 20.5 ± 4.7 L/min; p = 0.017), cardiac power output (4.3 ± 1.6 vs. 5.9 ± 1.8 watts; p = 0.017), mean arterial blood pressure (126 ± 11 vs. 134 ± 10 mmHg; p = 0.039), and oxygen consumption (18.3 ± 6.0 vs. 30.5 ± 8.3 mL/kg/min; p < 0.001), respectively. Peak arteriovenous oxygen difference and stroke volume were not significantly different between HCM patients and healthy controls (11.2 ± 6.4 vs. 11.9 ± 3.1 mL/100 mL, p = 0.37 and 131 ± 50.6 vs. 132 ± 41.9 mL/beat, p = 0.76). There was a moderate positive relationship between peak oxygen consumption and peak heart rate (r = 0.67, p < 0.001), and arteriovenous oxygen difference (r = 0.59, p = 0.001). Functional capacity is significantly reduced in patients with HCM primarily due to diminished central (cardiac) rather than peripheral factors. Application of non-invasive hemodynamic assessment may improve understanding of the pathophysiology and explain mechanisms of exercise intolerance in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Comparison of Valsalva Maneuver, Amyl Nitrite, and Exercise Echocardiography to Demonstrate Latent Left Ventricular Outflow Obstruction in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Guidelines recommend exercise stress echocardiogram (ESE) for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) if a 50 mm Hg gradient is not present at rest or provoked with Valsalva or amyl nitrite, to direct medical and surgical management. However, no study has directly compared all 3 methods. We sought to evaluate efficacy and degree of provocation of left ventricular outflow gradients by ESE, and compare with Valsalva and amyl nitrite. In patients with HC between 2002 and 2015, resting echocardiograms and ESEs within 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Gradients elicited by each provocation method were compared. Rest and ESE were available in 97 patients (mean age 54 ± 18 years, 57% male); 78 underwent Valsalva maneuver and 41 amyl nitrite provocation. Median gradients (interquartile range) were 10 mm Hg (7,19) at rest, 16 mm Hg (9,34) with Valsalva, 23 mm Hg (13,49) with amyl nitrite, and 26 mm Hg (13,58) with ESE. ESE and amyl nitrite were able to provoke obstruction (≥30 mm Hg) and severe obstruction (≥50 mm Hg) more frequently than Valsalva. In patients with resting gradient <30 mm Hg (n = 83), provocation maneuvers demonstrated dynamic obstruction in 51%; in those with Valsalva gradient <30 mm Hg (n = 57), ESE or amyl nitrite provoked a gradient in 44%; and in those with amyl nitrite gradient <30 mm Hg (n = 20), ESE provoked a gradient in 29%. No demographic or baseline echocardiographic parameter predicted provocable obstruction. In conclusion, ESE is clinically useful; however, different provocation maneuvers may be effective in different patients with HC, and all maneuvers may be required to provoke dynamic obstruction in symptomatic patients.