Key result
Ex-CMR reveals impaired compliance reserve in all HFpEF subgroups and higher contractile reserve in exercise-induced HFpEF.
Why the study?
Contractile reserve remains underexplored in HFpEF, and distinguishing exercise-induced HFpEF from non-cardiac dyspnea is challenging due to difficulties standardizing exercise protocols during Ex-CMR.
Does an Ex-CMR-derived work-volume loop model differentiate between non-cardiac dyspnea, exercise-induced HFpEF, and stage C HFpEF?
Population
120 participants including healthy controls, NCD, exercise-induced HFpEF, and stage C HFpEF
Comparison
Healthy controls vs NCD vs exercise-induced HFpEF vs stage C HFpEF
Design
Retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter Ex-CMR study
Authors
Loading...
May support Ex-CMR for distinguishing exercise-induced HFpEF from NCD; leaves open prospective validation of reserve metrics.
Observational (n=120)
Yes
Does an Ex-CMR-derived work-volume loop model differentiate between non-cardiac dyspnea, exercise-induced HFpEF, and stage C HFpEF?
p-value: p=<0.0001
Ex-CMR-derived work-volume loop geometry reveals distinctive features across HFpEF subgroups, identifying a hypercontractile profile characteristic of exercise-induced HFpEF.
Ghanbari et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=120). Exercise cardiovascular magnetic resonance (Ex-CMR) work-volume loop model vs. Healthy controls and non-cardiac dyspnea (NCD) was evaluated on Effort-adjusted compliance reserve and contractile reserve (p=<0.0001). Ex-CMR-derived work-volume loop geometry revealed impaired compliance reserve in all HFpEF subgroups (p<0.0001) and higher contractile reserve in exercise-induced HFpEF versus controls (p=0.018).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: