Metaboreceptor activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Linking cardiac and peripheral vascular...

What is the central question of this research? Do patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) exhibit a greater dependence on cardiac or peripheral vascular haemodynamics across multiple levels of muscle metaboreflex activation provoked by postexercise circulatory occlusion? What is the main finding and its importance? The metaboreflex-induced pressor response in HFrEF patients is governed almost entirely by the peripheral circulation, which places a substantial haemodynamic load on the failing heart. This maladaptive response exacerbates the disease-related impairment of systolic function that is a hallmark feature of HFrEF and may therefore contribute to exercise intolerance in this patient group.

We sought to evaluate the muscle metaboreflex in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, with an emphasis on the interaction between cardiac and peripheral vascular haemodynamics across multiple levels of metaboreceptor activation. In 23 HFrEF patients (63 ± 2 years of age) and 15 healthy control subjects (64 ± 3 years of age), we examined changes in mean arterial pressure, cardiac output, systemic vascular conductance, effective arterial elastance, stroke work and forearm deoxyhaemoglobin concentration during metaboreceptor activation elicited by postexercise circulatory occlusion (PECO) after three levels of static-intermittent handgrip exercise (15, 30 and 45% maximal voluntary contraction). Across workloads, the metaboreflex-induced increase in deoxyhaemoglobin and mean arterial pressure were similar between groups. However, in control subjects, the pressor response was driven by changes (Δ) in cardiac output  (Δ495 ± 155, Δ564 ± 156 and Δ666 ± 217 ml min^-1 ), whereas this change was accomplished by intensity-dependent reductions in systemic vascular conductance in patients with HFrEF (Δ-4.9 ± 1.5, Δ-9.1 ± 1.9 and Δ-12.7 ± 1.8 ml min mmHg^-1 ). This differential response contributed to the exaggerated increases in effective arterial elastance in HFrEF patients compared with control subjects, coupled with a blunted response in stroke work in the HFrEF patients. Together, these findings indicate a preserved role of the metaboreflex-induced pressor response in HFrEF but suggest that this response is governed by changes in the peripheral circulation. The net effect of this response appears to be maladaptive, as it places a substantial haemodynamic load on the left ventricle that may exacerbate left ventricular systolic dysfunction and contribute to exercise intolerance in this patient population.