Konstantinos Prokopidis, Krzysztof Irlik, Theocharis Ispoglou, Panagiotis Ferentinos, Alexandros Mitropoulos, Mathias Schlögl, Masoud Isanejad, Kamil Kegler, Katarzyna Nabrdalik, Gregory Y H Lip
{"title":"心力衰竭的运动能力:vo2峰值和6分钟步行距离HFrEF和HFpEF差异的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Konstantinos Prokopidis, Krzysztof Irlik, Theocharis Ispoglou, Panagiotis Ferentinos, Alexandros Mitropoulos, Mathias Schlögl, Masoud Isanejad, Kamil Kegler, Katarzyna Nabrdalik, Gregory Y H Lip","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit unique physiological pathways, influencing exercise capacity and functional performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare peak oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2peak</sub>), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV), between these phenotypes.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A systematic literature search of cohort studies via databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until October 2024. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effects was employed. Forty-six studies were included. HFrEF patients demonstrated significantly greater 6MWD compared to HFpEF (<i>k</i> = 20; mean difference (MD): 18.09 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-34.59, I<sup>2</sup> = 86%, <i>P</i> = 0.03), though this difference became insignificant after adjusting for comorbidities. Conversely, HFpEF patients exhibited higher VO<sub>2peak</sub> (<i>k</i> = 20; MD: -0.78 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -1.45--0.11, I<sup>2</sup> = 89%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), CO (<i>k</i> = 12; MD: -1.15 L/min, 95% CI -2.11--0.19, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), and SV (<i>k</i> = 14; SMD: -1.00, 95% CI -1.60--0.39, I<sup>2</sup> = 95%, <i>P</i> < 0.01). Age was identified as a significant moderator of VO<sub>2peak</sub>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HFpEF patients demonstrated superior VO<sub>2peak</sub>, CO, and SV compared to HFrEF patients, while the observed 6MWD advantage in HFrEF was likely influenced by comorbidities. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailoring rehabilitation strategies to HF phenotype-specific physiological profiles, particularly focusing on improving VO<sub>2peak</sub> and cardiac efficiency in HFpEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":"5 3","pages":"oeaf055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exercise capacity in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of HFrEF and HFpEF disparities in VO<sub>2</sub>peak and 6-minute walking distance.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos Prokopidis, Krzysztof Irlik, Theocharis Ispoglou, Panagiotis Ferentinos, Alexandros Mitropoulos, Mathias Schlögl, Masoud Isanejad, Kamil Kegler, Katarzyna Nabrdalik, Gregory Y H Lip\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit unique physiological pathways, influencing exercise capacity and functional performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare peak oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2peak</sub>), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV), between these phenotypes.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A systematic literature search of cohort studies via databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until October 2024. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effects was employed. Forty-six studies were included. HFrEF patients demonstrated significantly greater 6MWD compared to HFpEF (<i>k</i> = 20; mean difference (MD): 18.09 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-34.59, I<sup>2</sup> = 86%, <i>P</i> = 0.03), though this difference became insignificant after adjusting for comorbidities. Conversely, HFpEF patients exhibited higher VO<sub>2peak</sub> (<i>k</i> = 20; MD: -0.78 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -1.45--0.11, I<sup>2</sup> = 89%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), CO (<i>k</i> = 12; MD: -1.15 L/min, 95% CI -2.11--0.19, I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, <i>P</i> = 0.02), and SV (<i>k</i> = 14; SMD: -1.00, 95% CI -1.60--0.39, I<sup>2</sup> = 95%, <i>P</i> < 0.01). Age was identified as a significant moderator of VO<sub>2peak</sub>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HFpEF patients demonstrated superior VO<sub>2peak</sub>, CO, and SV compared to HFrEF patients, while the observed 6MWD advantage in HFrEF was likely influenced by comorbidities. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailoring rehabilitation strategies to HF phenotype-specific physiological profiles, particularly focusing on improving VO<sub>2peak</sub> and cardiac efficiency in HFpEF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European heart journal open\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"oeaf055\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202100/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European heart journal open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:心力衰竭(HF)伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)和伴射血分数保留(HFpEF)表现出独特的生理途径,影响运动能力和功能表现。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较这些表型之间的峰值耗氧量(VO2peak)、6分钟步行距离(6MWD)、心输出量(CO)和脑卒中量(SV)。方法和结果:从成立到2024年10月,通过数据库(PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane Library)对队列研究进行了系统的文献检索。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析,计算合并效应。纳入46项研究。与HFpEF相比,HFrEF患者表现出明显更高的6MWD (k = 20;平均差异(MD): 18.09 m, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.59 ~ 34.59, I2 = 86%, P = 0.03),但在调整合并症后,这一差异变得不显著。相反,HFpEF患者表现出更高的vo2峰(k = 20;MD: -0.78毫升/公斤/分钟,95% CI -1.45——0.11,I2 = 89%, P = 0.02),公司(k = 12;MD: -1.15升/分钟,95% CI -2.11——0.19,I2 = 97%, P = 0.02)和SV (k = 14;SMD: -1.00, 95% CI -1.60——0.39,I2 = 95%, P < 0.01)。年龄是vo2峰值的显著调节因子。结论:与HFrEF患者相比,HFpEF患者表现出更高的VO2peak、CO和SV,而HFrEF患者所观察到的6MWD优势可能受到合并症的影响。我们的研究结果强调了根据HF表型特异性生理特征定制康复策略的重要性,特别是关注于提高HFpEF患者的vo2峰值和心脏效率。
Exercise capacity in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of HFrEF and HFpEF disparities in VO2peak and 6-minute walking distance.
Aims: Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit unique physiological pathways, influencing exercise capacity and functional performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV), between these phenotypes.
Methods and results: A systematic literature search of cohort studies via databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until October 2024. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effects was employed. Forty-six studies were included. HFrEF patients demonstrated significantly greater 6MWD compared to HFpEF (k = 20; mean difference (MD): 18.09 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-34.59, I2 = 86%, P = 0.03), though this difference became insignificant after adjusting for comorbidities. Conversely, HFpEF patients exhibited higher VO2peak (k = 20; MD: -0.78 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -1.45--0.11, I2 = 89%, P = 0.02), CO (k = 12; MD: -1.15 L/min, 95% CI -2.11--0.19, I2 = 97%, P = 0.02), and SV (k = 14; SMD: -1.00, 95% CI -1.60--0.39, I2 = 95%, P < 0.01). Age was identified as a significant moderator of VO2peak.
Conclusion: HFpEF patients demonstrated superior VO2peak, CO, and SV compared to HFrEF patients, while the observed 6MWD advantage in HFrEF was likely influenced by comorbidities. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailoring rehabilitation strategies to HF phenotype-specific physiological profiles, particularly focusing on improving VO2peak and cardiac efficiency in HFpEF.