Deep Phenotype Characterization of Hypertensive Response to Exercise: Implications on Functional Capacity and Prognosis Across the Heart Failure Spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Limited evidence is available regarding the role of hypertensive response to exercise (HRE) in heart failure (HF). We evaluated the systolic blood pressure (SBP) to workload slope during exercise across the HF spectrum, investigating haemodynamic and prognostic correlates of HRE. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 369 patients with HF Stage C (143 had preserved [HFpEF], and 226 reduced [HFrEF] ejection fraction), 201 subjects at risk of developing HF (HF Stages A-B), and 58 healthy controls. We performed a combined cardiopulmonary exercise stress echocardiography testing. We defined HRE as the highest sex-specific SBP/workload slope tertile in each HF stage. Median SBP/workload slope was 0.53 mmHg/W (interquartile range 0.36-0.72); the slope was 39% steeper in women than men (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age and sex, SBP/workload slope in HFrEF (0.47, 0.30-0.63) was similar to controls (0.43, 0.35-0.57) but significantly lower than Stages A-B (0.61, 0.47-0.75) and HFpEF (0.63, 0.42-0.86). Patients with HRE showed significantly lower peak oxygen consumption and peripheral oxygen extraction. After a median follow-up of 16 months, HRE was independently associated with adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons: hazard ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.81-5.18), while rest and peak SBP were not. Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed a worse survival probability in Stages A-B (p = 0.005) and HFpEF (p < 0.001), but not HFrEF. CONCLUSION: A steeper SBP/workload slope is associated with impaired functional capacity across the HF spectrum and could be a more sensitive predictor of adverse events than absolute SBP values, mainly in patients in Stages A-B and HFpEF.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".