Why the study?
Patients with HFrEF who achieve improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) after guideline-directed medical therapy exhibit a superior prognosis, yet functional impairment remains a hallmark of heart failure, warranting comparison of longitudinal exercise capacity profiles against patients with persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF).
Does achieving heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) improve exercise capacity profiles on cardiopulmonary exercise testing compared to persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF) in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=111)
Does achieving heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) improve exercise capacity profiles on cardiopulmonary exercise testing compared to persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF) in patients with HFrEF?
Although patients achieving HFimpEF experience superior gains in normalized aerobic capacity (% predicted VO2peak) and reverse remodeling, overall functional trajectories on CPET remain largely comparable to HFprEF, highlighting persistent functional limitations and structural-functional decoupling.
Background: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who achieve improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) after guideline-directed medical therapy exhibit superior prognosis. However, functional impairment remains a hallmark of HF. Aims: To characterize and compare exercise capacity profiles via cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) between patients with HFimpEF and those with persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF) using a baseline-adjusted analysis. Methods: Data from a longitudinal cohort of 111 HFrEF patients with baseline and follow-up CPET data (minimum 6-month follow-up) were analyzed. Patients were stratified into HFimpEF and HFprEF groups, according to the Universal Definition of HF. Changes between groups were evaluated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline values, with non-parametric Bootstrapping (2000 resamples) and multiplicity. Results: We included 111 patients: 69 with HFimpEF (62.2%) and 42 with HFprEF (37.8%). At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the HFimpEF group showed significantly greater reverse remodeling (adjusted ΔLVEF +19.9%, p < 0.001) and a greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels (−557.6 pg/mL, p = 0.042). Both groups demonstrated intra-group functional improvements. However, in adjusted between-group ANCOVA models, HFimpEF achieved a significantly greater recovery in percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (adjusted difference: +8.5%; 95% CI: 1.2 to 16.1; p = 0.021). Net adjusted between-group differences for absolute VO2peak gain, submaximal threshold, ventilatory efficiency and recovery kinetics did not reach statistical significance. Multivariate analysis identified older age (beta −0.261, p = 0.010), diabetes mellitus (beta −0.210, p = 0.023) and baseline VO2peak (beta −0.569, p < 0.001) as negative predictors of improvement. Conclusions: Comprehensive HFrEF management improves exercise capacity across all patients. Although HFimpEF yields superior gains in normalized aerobic capacity, overall functional trajectories are largely comparable between phenotypes. This structural-functional decoupling underscores persistent residual limitations in HFimpEF, supporting CPET for longitudinal risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santos et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=111). Heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) vs. Heart failure with persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF) was evaluated on Percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (% predicted VO2peak) (MD 8.5%, 95% CI 1.2 to 16.1, p=0.021).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: