Key result
Dynamic exercise increases in HR and SV strongly outperform resting LVEF in predicting pVO2.
Why the study?
Dynamic parameters reflecting chronotropic and contractile reserve during CPET, such as heart rate variation and stroke volume increase, may be more sensitive than LVEF in predicting functional capacity and outcomes in heart failure.
Do dynamic parameters (ΔHR and ΔSV) during CPET predict exercise capacity better than resting LVEF in heart failure patients?
Observational (n=174)
No
Do dynamic parameters (ΔHR and ΔSV) during CPET predict exercise capacity better than resting LVEF in heart failure patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.53 for ΔHR and r = 0.38 for ΔSV
p-value: p=< 0.001
Dynamic increases in heart rate and stroke volume during exercise are stronger predictors of aerobic capacity than resting LVEF in heart failure patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ΔHR during exercise may aid functional capacity assessment in HF; leaves open its incremental prognostic value in prospective cohorts.
Mapelli et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=174). Dynamic increase in heart rate (ΔHR) and stroke volume (ΔSV) during exercise vs. Resting LVEF was evaluated on Peak oxygen uptake (pVO2) (r = 0.53 for ΔHR and r = 0.38 for ΔSV, p=< 0.001). Dynamic increases in heart rate and stroke volume during exercise strongly correlated with peak oxygen uptake (r=0.53 and r=0.38), outperforming resting LVEF (r=0.22) in predicting aerobic capacity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: