Diastolic dysfunction and exercise capacity in patients with metabolic syndrome and overweight/obesity

Alonso-Gómez, Ángel; Tojal Sierra, Lucas; Fortuny Fraub, Elena; Goicolea Güemeza, Leire; Aboitiz Uribarria, Ane; Portillo, María Puy; Toledo, Estefania; Schröder, Helmut, 1958-; Salas Salvadó, Jordi; Arós, Fernando

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.12.010

Diastolic dysfunction and exercise capacity in patients with metabolic syndrome and overweight/obesity

License

Citation

Alonso-Gómez AM, Tojal Sierra L, Fortuny Frau E, Goicolea Güemez L, Aboitiz Uribarri A, Portillo MP. Et al. Diastolic dysfunction and exercise capacity in patients with metabolic syndrome and overweight/obesity. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2018 Dec 27;22:67-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2018.12.010

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left ventricle diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is a common finding in high risk individuals, its presence being associated with reduced exercise capacity (EC). We assessed the prevalence of LVDD, applying the 2016 guidelines of the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE)/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), in a population with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome and its association with EC. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study of a cohort of 235 patients (mean age of 65 ± 5 years old and 33% female) without heart disease and an ejection fraction >50% who underwent a complete echocardiographic assessment and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Individuals meeting three or more criteria of the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines are considered to have LVDD, while tests are considered indeterminate in those meeting only two. Overall, 178 (76%) of our patients met one echocardiographic cutoff value for LVDD, 91 (39%) met two and 7 (3%) three or more. Patients meeting three cutoffs values showed a significant reduction in maximal oxygen uptake (16 ± 3 vs. 19.6 ± 5 ml/kg/min, p < .05), unlike those with indeterminate tests. In multiple regression analysis, meeting three cutoffs was associated with number of METS (ß = -2.2, p = .018). In exploratory analysis, using two criteria based on cutoffs different from those proposed in the guidelines, we identified groups with different EC. CONCLUSIONS: The application of 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines limited the prevalence of LVDD to 3%. This group showed a clear reduction of the EC. New echocardiographic cutoff values proposed in this study allow us to establish subgroups with different levels of EC.