The cardiopulmonary exercise test in the prognostic evaluation of patients with heart failure and cardiomyopathies: the long history of making a one-size-fits-all suit.

Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) has become pivotal in the functional evaluation of patients with chronic heart failure (HF), supplying a holistic evaluation both in terms of exercise impairment degree and possible underlying mechanisms. Conversely, there is growing interest in investigating possible multiparametric approaches in order to improve the overall HF risk stratification. In such a context, in 2013, a group of 13 Italian centres skilled in HF management and CPET analysis built the Metabolic Exercise test data combined with Cardiac and Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score, based on the dynamic assessment of HF patients and on some other instrumental and laboratory parameters. Subsequently, the MECKI score, initially developed on a cohort of 2716 HF patients, has been extensively validated as well as challenged with the other multiparametric scores, achieving optimal results. Meanwhile, the MECKI score research group has grown over time, involving up to now a total of 27 centres with an available database accounting for nearly 8000 HF patients. This exciting joint effort from multiple HF Italian centres allowed to investigate different HF research field in order to deepen the mechanisms underlying HF, to improve the ability to identify patients at the highest risk as well as to analyse particular HF categories. Most recently, some of the participants of the MECKI score group started to join the forces in investigating a possible additive role of CPET assessment in the cardiomyopathy setting too. The present study tells the ten-year history of the MECKI score presenting the most important results achieved as well as those projects in the pipeline, this exciting journey being far to be concluded.

Physiology of exercise and heart failure treatments: cardiopulmonary exercise testing as a tool for choosing the optimal therapeutic strategy.

In the last decades, the pharmacological treatment of heart failure (HF) become more complex due to the availability of new highly effective drugs. Although the cardiovascular effects of HF therapies have been extensively described, less known are their effects on cardiopulmonary function considered as a whole, both at rest and in response to exercise. This is a 'holistic' approach to disease treatment that can be accurately evaluated by a cardiopulmonary exercise test. The aim of this paper is to assess the main differences in the effects of different drugs [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, Angiotensin II receptor blockers, ß-blockers, Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, renal sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, iron supplementation] on cardiopulmonary function in patients with HF, both at rest and during exercise, and to understand how these differences can be taken into account when choosing the most appropriate treatment protocol for each individual patient leading to a precision medicine approach.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise capacity: a prognostic improvement that starts during uptitration.

PURPOSE: Sacubitril/valsartan is a mainstay of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, its effects on exercise performance yielded conflicting results. Aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise parameters and echocardiographic and biomarker changes at different drug doses. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive HFrEF outpatients eligible to start sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent clinical assessment, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), blood sampling, echocardiography, and completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). Sacubitril/valsartan was introduced at 24/26 mg b.i.d. dose and progressively uptitrated in a standard monthly-based fashion to 97/103 mg b.i.d. or maximum tolerated dose. Study procedures were repeated at each titration visit and 6 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the study, 73 (75%) reached maximum sacubitril/valsartan dose. We observed a significant improvement in functional capacity across all study steps: oxygen intake increased, at peak exercise (from 15.6 ± 4.5 to 16.5 ± 4.9 mL/min/kg; p trend = 0.001), while minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production relationship reduced in patients with an abnormal value at baseline. Sacubitril/valsartan induced positive left ventricle reverse remodeling (EF from 31 ± 5 to 37 ± 8%; p trend < 0.001), while NT-proBNP reduced from 1179 [610-2757] to 780 [372-1344] pg/ml (p trend < 0.0001). NYHA functional class and the subjective perception of limitation in daily life at KCCQ-12 significantly improved. The Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index (MECKI) score progressively improved from 4.35 [2.42-7.71] to 2.35% [1.24-4.96], p = 0.003. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic and progressive HF improvement was observed with sacubitril/valsartan in parallel with quality of life. Likewise, a prognostic enhancement was observed.

The importance of re-evaluating the risk score in heart failure patients: An analysis from the Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score database.

BACKGROUND: The role of risk scores in heart failure (HF) management has been highlighted by international guidelines. In contrast with HF, which is intrinsically a dynamic and unstable syndrome, all its prognostic studies have been based on a single evaluation. We investigated whether time-related changes of a well-recognized risk score, the MECKI score, added prognostic value. MECKI score is based on peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, Na+, LVEF, MDRD and Hb. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study was conducted involving 660 patients who performed MECKI re-evaluation at least 6 months apart. Based on the difference between II and I evaluation of MECKI values (MECKI II - MECKI I = ∆ MECKI) the study population was divided in 2 groups: those presenting a score reduction (∆ MECKI <0, i.e. clinical improvement), vs. patients presenting an increase (∆ MECKI >0, clinical deterioration). RESULTS: The prognostic value of MECKI score is confirmed also when re-assessed during follow-up. The group with improved MECKI (366 patients) showed a better prognosis compared to patients with worsened MECKI (294 patients) (p < 0.0001). At 1st evaluation, the two groups differentiated by LVEF, VE/VCO2 slope and blood Na+ concentration, while at 2nd evaluation they differentiated in all 6 parameters considered in the score. The patients who improved MECKI score, improved in all components of the score but hemoglobin, while patients who worsened the score, worsened all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that re-assessment of MECKI score identifies HF subjects at higher risk and that score improvement or deterioration regards several MECKI score generating parameters confirming the holistic background of HF.