Right Ventricular Function and Its Coupling to Pulmonary Circulation Predicts Exercise Tolerance in Systolic Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, and exercise intolerance have prognostic values, but their interrelation is not fully understood. We investigated how RV function alone and its coupling with pulmonary circulation (RV-PA) predict cardio-respiratory fitness in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results The Evaluation of Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure (EARTH) study included 205 HFrEF patients with narrow (n = 85) and prolonged (n = 120) QRS duration undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. All patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with exercise tolerance tests and echocardiography. We investigated the correlations at baseline between RV parameters {size, function [tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional area change (RV-FAC), and RV myocardial performance index (RV-MPI)], pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), and tricuspid regurgitation}; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi), and left atrial volume index (LAVi); and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) [peak VO2, minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2), 6 min walk distance (6MWD), and submaximal exercise duration (SED)]. We also studied the relationship between RV-PA coupling (TAPSE/PASP ratio) and echocardiographic parameters in patients with both data available. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used. Patients enrolled in EARTH (overall population) were mostly male (73.2%), mean age 61.0 ± 9.8 years, New York Heart Association class II–III (87.8%), mean LVEF of 26.6 ± 7.7%, and reduced peak VO2 (15.1 ± 4.6 mL/kg/min). Of these, 100 had both TAPSE and PASP available (TAPSE/PASP population): they exhibited higher BNP, wider QRS duration, larger LVEDVi, with more having tricuspid regurgitation compared with the 105 patients for whom these values were not available (all P < 0.05). RV-FAC (β = 7.5), LAVi (β = −0.1), and sex (female, β = −1.9) predicted peak VO2 in the overall population (all P = 0.01). When available, TAPSE/PASP ratio was the only echocardiographic parameter associated with peak VO2 (β = 6.8; P < 0.01), a threshold ≤0.45 predicting a peak VO2 ≤ 14 mL/kg/min (0.39 for VO2 ≤ 12). RV-MPI was the only echocardiographic parameter associated with ventilatory inefficiency (VE/VCO2) and 6MWD (β = 21.9 and β = −69.3, respectively, both P ≤ 0.01) in the overall population. In presence of TAPSE/PASP, it became an important predictor for those two CPET (β = −18.0 and β = 72.4, respectively, both P < 0.01), together with RV-MPI (β = 18.5, P < 0.01) for VE/VCO2. Tricuspid regurgitation predicted SED (β = −3.2, P = 0.03). Conclusions Right ventricular function assessed by echocardiography (RV-MPI and RV-FAC) is closely associated with exercise tolerance in patients with HFrEF. When the TAPSE/PASP ratio is available, this marker of RV-PA coupling becomes the stronger echocardiographic predictor of exercise capacity in this population, highlighting its potential role as a screening tool to identify patients with reduced exercise capacity and potentially triage them to formal peak VO2 and/or evaluation for advanced HF therapies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".