Key result
Dynamic exercise increases in HR and SV predict pVO2 more strongly than resting LVEF in HF.
Why the study?
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; r = 0.38 for ΔSV
p-value: p=<0.001
In heart failure patients, dynamic increases in heart rate and stroke volume during CPET are stronger predictors of aerobic capacity than resting LVEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ΔHR and ΔSV in CPET may refine HF risk stratification; leaves open routine adoption pending prospective validation.
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; r = 0.38 for ΔSV, p=<0.001). Dynamic increases in heart rate (r=0.53) and stroke volume (r=0.38) during exercise were stronger predictors of peak oxygen uptake than resting LVEF (r=0.22) in heart failure patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: