Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

Evaluation of Coronary Flow Reserve After Myocardial Ischemia Reperfusion in Rats
Published on: June 28, 2019
Clinical and Prognostic Impact of Hemodynamic Gain Index and Heart Hemodynamic Reserve in Heart Failure with Reduced
Emiliano Fiori1,2, Sara Corradetti1,2, Giovanna Gallo1
1Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Insights
New hemodynamic metrics, hemodynamic gain index (HGI) and heart hemodynamic reserve (HHR), show promise for risk stratification in heart failure (HF) patients. These non-metabolic measures offer valuable prognostic insights where cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is not feasible.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Exercise Physiology
Background:
- Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is crucial for heart failure (HF) risk stratification but faces limitations in routine clinical practice due to cost and technical demands.
- Non-metabolic parameters like the hemodynamic gain index (HGI) derived from blood pressure and heart rate changes show potential in HF populations.
- Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 50% defines the study cohort for evaluating prognostic markers.
Purpose of the Study:
- To validate the prognostic value of the hemodynamic gain index (HGI) in patients with heart failure (HF).
- To evaluate a novel metric, heart hemodynamic reserve (HHR), for its prognostic utility in HF patients.
- To assess HGI and HHR in predicting cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation (HTx), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 479 HF patients with reduced or mildly reduced LVEF undergoing maximal CPET.
- Calculation of HGI and heart hemodynamic reserve (HHR) using resting and peak exercise hemodynamic data.
- Prognostic associations evaluated using multivariable Cox regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
Main Results:
- The composite endpoint occurred in 11.5% of patients over a median follow-up of 3.25 years.
- Both HGI and HHR were independently associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes (HGI HR: 0.41; HHR HR: 0.89).
- HHR demonstrated slightly superior prognostic accuracy compared to HGI (AUC 0.78 vs. 0.74).
Conclusions:
- Hemodynamic gain index (HGI) and heart hemodynamic reserve (HHR) are independent prognostic markers in HF patients with LVEF < 50%.
- The non-metabolic nature of HGI and HHR makes them valuable for risk stratification, especially when CPET is unavailable.
Abstract:
Background/Objectives: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a well-established tool for risk stratification in patients with heart failure (HF); however, its utility is limited in routine clinical practice due to the associated cost and technical demands. The hemodynamic gain index (HGI), a non-metabolic parameter derived from systolic blood pressure and heart rate changes during exercise, has been demonstrated to play a promising role in HF populations. In this study, we aimed both to validate the prognostic value of the HGI and to evaluate a novel metric, heart hemodynamic reserve (HHR), in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 50%. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 479 consecutive patients with HF and reduced or mildly reduced LVEF who underwent maximal, symptom-limited CPET at three Italian university hospitals between 2012 and 2024. The HGI and HHR were computed using resting and peak exercise hemodynamic data. HHR is defined as the product of systolic blood pressure and heart rate reserve with exercise, normalized for the age-predicted maximum heart rate. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplantation (HTx), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Prognostic associations were assessed using multivariable Cox regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Results: During a median follow-up of 3.25 years, the composite outcome occurred in 56 patients (11.5%). Both the HGI and HHR were independently associated with the prespecified endpoint (HGI HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.83, p = 0.013; HHR HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.96, p = 0.004), with HHR showing a slightly higher prognostic accuracy than the HGI (AUC 0.78 vs. 0.74; p = 0.033). Conclusions: Both the HGI and HHR are independent prognostic markers in HF patients with LVEF < 50%. Their non-metabolic derivation makes them valuable tools for risk stratification in settings where CPET is unavailable.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure II: Pathophysiology
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure VII: Nursing Interventions
Heart Failure III: Clinical Manifestations

