Key result
Advanced-impairment HFpEF exercise phenotype is linked to ~119% higher risk of death or CV hospitalization.
Why the study?
HFpEF is a heterogeneous disease characterized by exercise intolerance, but previous efforts to define pathophysiologically distinct subgroups mainly relied on resting examinations.
Does CPETecho-based phenotyping identify distinct subgroups with different clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF?
Cohort (n=913)
Yes
Does CPETecho-based phenotyping identify distinct subgroups with different clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF?
Deep phenotyping using combined cardiopulmonary exercise testing and stress echocardiography identifies five distinct HFpEF exercise phenotypes with marked differences in pathophysiology and clinical outcomes, enabling better risk stratification.
May aid HFpEF risk stratification by exercise phenotypes; leaves open whether targeted interventions improve outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by exercise intolerance. Defining pathophysiologically distinct subgroups allows more personalized therapy, but efforts mainly relied on resting examinations. This study aimed to define HFpEF phenotypes based on exercise limitations using combined cardiopulmonary exercise testing with stress echocardiography. METHODS: A total of 913 patients with HFpEF were recruited from 4 third-line centers and divided into derivation (n=623) and validation cohorts (n=290). Unsupervised graph-based clustering of 61 cardiopulmonary exercise testing with stress echocardiography variables was used to identify HFpEF exercise phenotypes. Pathophysiological characteristics, exercise capacity, and clinical outcomes were compared between phenotypes. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, cluster analysis identified 5 distinct HFpEF exercise phenotypes characterized by specific exercise responses: mild diastolic dysfunction (phenotype 1), impaired peripheral oxygen extraction (phenotype 2), right ventricular-pulmonary artery uncoupling (phenotype 3), reduced left ventricular systolic reserve (phenotype 4), and chronotropic incompetence (phenotype 5). The composite outcome of all-cause death and unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization differed significantly across phenotypes, with phenotypes 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76 [95% CI, 1.07-2.91]), 4 (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.27-3.65]), and 5 (HR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.33-3.61]) showing higher rates of the primary combined outcome compared with phenotype 1. All phenotypes were replicated in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Deep phenotyping of the exercise response in patients with HFpEF revealed 5 distinct phenogroups with marked differences in pathophysiology, exercise performance, and clinical outcomes. This subclassification may support more personalized therapeutic strategies and improve risk stratification in HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schutter et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=913). HFpEF exercise phenotypes (Phenotype 5) vs. Phenotype 1 (mild diastolic dysfunction) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.33-3.61, p=0.003). Exercise-based clustering identified 5 distinct HFpEF phenotypes, with phenotype 5 (advanced functional impairment) showing a significantly higher risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 2.19) compared to phenotype 1.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: