Why the study?
Little information is available regarding the relation between the constituents of cardiac output (heart rate and stroke volume) and exercise capacity in HFpEF.
What are the determinants and consequences of heart rate and stroke volume response to exercise in patients with HFpEF?
What are the determinants and consequences of heart rate and stroke volume response to exercise in patients with HFpEF?
The haemodynamic response to exercise in HFpEF is highly heterogeneous, suggesting that exercise testing may help identify patients who would benefit from targeted interventions for stroke volume or chronotropic incompetence.
Exercise testing may phenotype HFpEF patients with chronotropic incompetence or reduced stroke volume; leaves open targeted intervention trials.
AIMS: A hallmark of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is impaired exercise capacity of varying severity. The main determinant of exercise capacity is cardiac output (CO), however little information is available about the relation between the constituents of CO - heart rate and stroke volume - and exercise capacity in HFpEF. We sought to determine if a heterogeneity in heart rate and stroke volume response to exercise exists in patients with HFpEF and describe possible clinical phenotypes associated with differences in these responses. METHODS AND Higher body mass index and lower SVI at rest were associated with smaller increases in heart rate during exercise, whereas higher resting heart rate, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker use were associated with a greater increase in SVI in patients with HFpEF. CONCLUSION: The haemodynamic response to exercise was very heterogeneous among patients with HFpEF, with chronotropic incompetence observed in up to 56%, and 28% had impaired increase in SVI. This suggests that haemodynamic exercise testing may be useful to identify which HFpEF patients may benefit from interventions targeting stroke volume and chronotropic response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolsk et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: