Differential Responses of Post-Exercise Recovery of Leg Blood Flow and Oxygen Uptake Kinetics in HFpEF versus HFrEF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of the current study were to compare leg blood flow, oxygen extraction and oxygen uptake (VO2) after constant load sub-maximal unilateral knee extension (ULKE) exercise in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to those with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Previously, it has been shown that prolonged whole body VO2 recovery kinetics are directly related to disease severity and all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients. To date, no study has simultaneously measured muscle-specific blood flow and oxygen extraction post exercise recovery kinetics in HFrEF or HFpEF patients; therefore it is unknown if muscle VO2 recovery kinetics, and more specifically, the recovery kinetics of blood flow and oxygen extraction at the level of the muscle, differ between HF phenotypes. Ten older (68±10yrs) HFrEF (n = 5) and HFpEF (n = 5) patients performed sub-maximal (85% of maximal weight lifted during an incremental test) ULKE exercise for 4 minutes. Femoral venous blood flow and venous O2 saturation were measured continuously from the onset of end-exercise, using a novel MRI method, to determine off-kinetics (mean response times, MRT) for leg VO2 and its determinants. HFpEF and HFrEF patients had similar end-exercise leg blood flow (1.1±0.6 vs. 1.2±0.6 L/min, p>0.05), venous saturation (42±12 vs. 41±11%, p>0.05) and VO2 (0.13±0.08 vs. 0.11±0.05 L/min, p>0.05); however HFrEF had significantly delayed recovery MRT for flow (292±135sec. vs 105±63sec., p = 0.004) and VO2 (95±37sec. vs. 47±15sec., p = 0.005) compared to HFpEF. Impaired muscle VO2 recovery kinetics following ULKE exercise differentiated HFrEF from HFpEF patients and suggests distinct underlying pathology and potential therapeutic approaches in these populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".