Key result
HFpEF and HFrEF reduce peak exercise heart rate by ~20% compared with healthy controls.
Why the study?
The pattern of chronotropic incompetence response to exercise across distinct LVEF phenotypes in heart failure, and the extent to which heart rate response should be prioritized as a therapeutic target, needed characterization.
How does exercise chronotropic incompetence and its physiological compensatory mechanisms differ between patients with HFpEF, HFrEF, and healthy controls during incremental exercise testing?
Cross-Sectional
How does exercise chronotropic incompetence and its physiological compensatory mechanisms differ between patients with HFpEF, HFrEF, and healthy controls during incremental exercise testing?
Chronotropic incompetence contributes to exercise intolerance in both HFpEF and HFrEF, but HFrEF compensates with greater peripheral oxygen extraction whereas HFpEF exhibits impaired peripheral oxygen extraction and lower relative peak VO2.
Chronotropic incompetence limits exercise tolerance in HF; leaves open whether subtype-specific compensation informs targeted interventions.
Aims To characterize the pattern of chronotropic incompetence (CI) response to exercise in patients with heart failure (HF) across distinct phenotypes of the left ventricular ejection fraction and to explore the extent to which heart rate (HR) response should be prioritized as a therapeutic target within personalized HF management strategies. Methods Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and healthy controls underwent incremental exercise testing with simultaneous gas exchange and echocardiography assessments. Stroke volume (SV), HR, cardiac output (CO), and arteriovenous oxygen difference [C(a–v)O2] were assessed from rest to peak exercise. Graphical analyses explored relationships amongst determinants of oxygen uptake (V̇O2). Results Both HF phenotypes exhibited CI and a blunted increase in CO during exercise compared with controls. Peak HR was similarly reduced by 20% in HFpEF and 23% in HFrEF. HFpEF, however, exhibited a steeper HR-VO2 relationship. HFrEF demonstrated a greater compensatory increase in peripheral O2 extraction, with peak C(a–v)O2 73% higher than controls and 21% higher than HFpEF. In contrast, HFpEF showed limited ability to augment C(a–v)O2 and presented the lowest relative peak V̇O2 (−39% vs. controls and −16% vs. HFrEF), despite similar peak V̇O2%pred between HF phenotypes. Conclusion CI can contribute to exercise intolerance in both HF phenotypes, with distinct compensatory mechanisms. An integrated cardiopulmonary exercise testing–echocardiography approach may support identifying phenotype-specific physiological profiles that might address therapeutic strategies targeting CI, SV reserve, and peripheral O2 utilization to improve functional capacity in HF. Addressing the kinetics of HR slope and ΔHR metrics seems relevant to implement knowledge on the fundamental CI contribution in HF phenotypes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF). Heart failure phenotype (HFpEF and HFrEF) during incremental exercise testing vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Chronotropic incompetence (peak heart rate), stroke volume, cardiac output, arteriovenous oxygen difference [C(a-v)O2], and oxygen uptake (VO2) from rest to peak exercise. Both HFpEF and HFrEF reduced peak exercise heart rate by 20% and 23% vs controls, while HFrEF increased peak C(a-v)O2 by 73% vs controls and 21% vs HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: