Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2025

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Heart failure classification based on resting ejection fraction does not display a unique exercise response pattern
Simon Wernhart1, Maria Papathanasiou1, Tienush Rassaf1
1University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, West German Heart- and Vascular Center, Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Insights
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) do not show distinct cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) profiles. CPET variables may help better define heart failure phenotypes beyond ejection fraction categories.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Exercise Physiology
- Heart Failure Research
Background:
- The categorization of heart failure (HF) into preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF) is debated.
- It remains unclear if these HF classifications correspond to distinct exercise limitation patterns identified through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET).
- This study investigates differences in CPET variables across the three main HF categories.
Purpose of the Study:
- To determine if cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) variables differ significantly among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
- To assess the utility of CPET in characterizing heart failure phenotypes beyond traditional ejection fraction-based classifications.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of CPET variables from stable patients diagnosed with HFpEF (n=123), HFmrEF (n=31), and HFrEF (n=153).
- The primary outcome was the association between HF category and peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak).
- Secondary outcomes included the association between HF category and oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) and the increase of O2 pulse (ΔO2 pulse).
Main Results:
- Peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) showed a significant decline across all HF categories (HFpEF > HFmrEF > HFrEF, p < 0.001).
- Oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) differed significantly between HFpEF and HFrEF (p < 0.001), and between HFmrEF and HFrEF (p = 0.004).
- The increase of O2 pulse (ΔO2 pulse) differed between HFpEF and HFrEF (p < 0.001), and between HFpEF and HFmrEF (p = 0.049). No significant differences were observed in CPET variables between HFrEF patients with and without LVAD support.
Conclusions:
- Heart failure, irrespective of ejection fraction category, does not exhibit a distinct cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) profile.
- Ejection fraction-based categorization alone may not fully capture the spectrum of exercise limitations in heart failure patients.
- CPET variables hold potential for refining the characterization of heart failure phenotypes.
Background:
Heart failure with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (EF) remains a controversial categorization. Whether these three categories reflect a distinct pattern of exercise limitation in cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) needs to be investigated. We aimed to analyze whether CPET variables differ between all heart failure categories (HF).
Methods:
We analyzed CPET variables of stable HFpEF (n = 123), HFmrEF (n = 31), and HFrEF (n = 153; 74 patients with and 79 patients without left ventricular assist device, LVAD) patients. The association between HF and peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) was used as a primary outcome, while the association between HF, oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), and increase of O2 pulse (ΔO2 pulse) were analyzed as secondary outcomes.
Results:
VO2peak displayed a consistent decline across all HF categories (19.8 ml ± 6.2/kg/min vs. 17.5 ± 7.9 ml/kg/min vs. 13.7 ± 4.0 ml/kg/min, p < 0.001). OUES only showed differences between HFpEF and HFrEF (1.8 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 0.5, p < 0.001) as well as HFmrEF and HFrEF (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 0.5, p = 0.004). ΔO2 pulse differed between HFpEF and HFrEF (7.7 ± 3.5 ml/beat/kg*100 vs. 5.5 ± 3.0 ml/beat/kg*100, p < 0.001) as well as HFpEF and HFmrEF (7.7 ± 3.5 ml/beat/kg*100 vs. 6.3 ± 4.1 ml/beat/kg*100, p = 0.049). Outcome variables did not differ between HFrEF with and without LVAD support (VO2peak: p = 0.364, OUES: p = 0.129, ΔO2 pulse: p = 0.564).
Conclusions:
HF did not display a distinct CPET profile. Thus, EF-based categorization does not entirely reflect exercise limitations. CPET variables could contribute to better characterize HF phenotypes.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure I: Introduction
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure VII: Nursing Interventions

