ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2021
Rate pressure product, age predicted maximum heart rate or heart rate reserve. Which one better predicts cardiovascular events following exercise stress echocardiography?
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of stress parameters to determine prognosis following normal exercise SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Parasubthalamic Glutamatergic Neurons Coordinate Cardiovascular Homeostasis and Locomotion in Mice.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Validation of a novel multi-exercise approach to isometric resistance training in normotensive adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
- Blood pressure can be seriously elevated during botulinum toxin A detrusor injection.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Impact of Excess Adiposity on Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Children and Adolescents with Kawasaki Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of Adiposity on Cardiopulmonary Fitness in Children and Adolescents with Ventricular Septal Defects: a CPET-Based Comparative Study.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Effects of cardiac telerehabilitation during COVID-19 on cardiac hemodynamic and functional responses and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Target Heart Rate Formulas for Exercise Stress Testing: What Is the Evidence?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Effects of Addition of Inspiratory Muscle Training to Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation on Inspiratory Muscle Strength, Peak Oxygen Consumption, and Selected Hemodynamics in Chronic Heart Failure.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge-predicted maximum heart rate (APMHR) has been demonstrated to be a poor predictor of future cardiovascular (CV) events and is yet to be validated as a termination point during exercise testing. In contrast, maximum rate pressure product (MRPP) is recognized as a strong predictor of CV outcome with superior CV event prediction over APMHR. Heart rate reserve (HRR) has been shown to be a powerful predictor of CV mortality during exercise testing, however thus far, this is not confirmed for non-fatal CV events. The aim of this study was to compare APMHR, MRPP and HRR as predictors of CV events following otherwise negative exercise treadmill testing.
methodsAfter exclusions, 1080 patients being investigated for coronary artery disease performed an exercise stress echocardiogram (ESE) to volitional fatigue on a motorised treadmill. Blood pressure was measured manually, and ultrasound images performed as per current American Society of Echocardiography guidelines. Rate pressure product and HRR were calculated throughout the test and maximum values were identified. Patients were followed for 5.3±2.6 mean years.
resultsFrom receiver operating characteristic analysis, cut points were established for APMHR (94.6%) (AUC 0.687), MRPP (25085) (AUC 0.729) and HRR% (95.9) (AUC 0.688). MRPP outperformed both APMHR and HRR% for the prediction of future CV events. Furthermore, on Cox proportional hazard analysis MRPP was the strongest uni- and multivariate predictor (p<0.0001) with APMHR and HRR% failing to reach any statistical significance.
conclusionsThe current study demonstrates the substantial prognostic power of MRPP over both APMHR and HRR% to predict CV events following an otherwise negative ESE for myocardial ischemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34548942PMC8449196W3200558980What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.