Abstract
The ventilatory response to exercise may improve after 1) bariatric surgery in morbid obesity, and 2) CPAP treatment in obesity with obstructive sleep apnoea, but the prognostic utility of minute ventilation/CO2 production in these patients is unclear. https://bit.ly/3Gl6rHW
Reply to N. Borasio and co-workers:
We thank N. Borasio and co-workers for their correspondence bringing attention to their recent publications [1, 2]. The ventilatory response to exercise in patients with obesity is clearly an area of interest, as their original research articles [1, 2], along with others [3], have been published after our review article “Ventilatory efficiency in athletes, asthma and obesity” [4] was first submitted for publication.
Ventilatory efficiency after bariatric surgery: recent findings by Borasio et al. [2] in patients with a baseline body mass index of 43.6±5.3 kg·m−2 show that the minute ventilation (VʹE)–carbon dioxide production (VʹCO2) slope was reduced following sleeve gastrectomy, while the submaximal partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2) at anaerobic threshold and VʹE/VʹCO2 at the respiratory compensation point (i.e. nadir) were unchanged. The VʹE/VʹCO2 ratio at peak exercise was not specifically reported, but can be calculated using VʹE, VʹCO2 and respiratory exchange ratio data reported in the published tables [2]. Using these data, the VʹE/VʹCO2 ratio at peak exercise appears slightly reduced after sleeve gastrectomy as compared to baseline (30.5 versus 29.1).
In their correspondence letter, the authors state that the VʹE/VʹCO2 ratio at peak exercise may be used as a clinical marker to better understand the underlying mechanisms of exercise intolerance. While we agree that VʹE/VʹCO2 ratio at peak exercise may be useful when evaluating responses following interventions like bariatric surgery, we want to clarify that it is not an appropriate evaluation of ventilatory efficiency, due to the instability of arterial carbon dioxide tension (PCO2) (and PETCO2) at peak exercise, largely due to respiratory compensation at heavy metabolic demands [5–7]. To our knowledge, the prognostic utility of VʹE/VʹCO2 in this disease population has not been established.
Combined obesity and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA): N. Borasio and co-workers bring up the important point that there is limited research on the ventilatory response to exercise in patients with obesity and OSA and propose that OSA can contribute to further worsening exercise tolerance in obesity. Their recently published work found that patients with concomitant obesity and OSA show evidence of blunted VʹE and higher PETCO2 at peak exercise, as compared to those without OSA and individuals with OSA receiving night-time nasal continuous positive airway pressure treatment [1]. These data are suggestive of mechanical constraint; however, additional work is required to determine the precise mechanism behind these responses.
In their correspondence, the authors suggest evaluating ΔPETCO2 (calculated as the difference between the maximum value obtained during exercise versus the value at peak exercise) and proposed that a threshold value may be a predictor of OSA in patients with morbid obesity. We are cautious to use PETCO2 as a clinical marker because of a lack of accuracy and suggest that temperature corrected arterial PCO2 is preferred in evaluating alveolar ventilation as PETCO2 is prone to errors [5–7]. Specifically, PETCO2 may be higher than alveolar and arterial PCO2 in health and obesity [8, 9], since during exercise more carbon dioxide diffuses into the alveoli as lung volumes decrease during a continued exhalation. Therefore, expiratory PCO2 increases toward mixed-venous PCO2 faster during exercise than at rest [5–7].
We thank N. Borasio and co-workers for bringing attention to their interesting work [1, 2]. We look forward to future studies evaluating the ventilatory response to exercise in patients with obesity and various comorbidities.
Footnotes
Provenance: Invited article, peer reviewed.
Author contributions: All authors (S.É. Collins, D.B. Phillips, A.R. Brotto, Z.H. Rampuri and M.K. Stickland) contributed to manuscript writing and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest: S.É. Collins has nothing to disclose.
Conflicts of interest: D.B. Phillips has nothing to disclose.
Conflicts of interest: A.R. Brotto has nothing to disclose.
Conflicts of interest: Z.H. Rampuri has nothing to disclose.
Conflicts of interest: M.K. Stickland has nothing to disclose.
Support statement: Funding was provided from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Lung Association of Alberta and Northwest Territories (M.K. Stickland). S.É. Collins was supported by a Canadian Respiratory Research Network Doctoral Studentship. D.B. Phillips was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.
- Received March 22, 2022.
- Accepted May 19, 2022.
- Copyright ©The authors 2022
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org