MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7127886936 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.893

Sympathetic vasoconstrictor constraint on exercise capacity in heart failure: does biological sex matter?

2025· article· en· W7127886936 on OpenAlexaff
M Badrov, Catherine F. Notarius, S Mak, J Floras

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateBlood pressureCyclingReflexHeart failureMicroneurographyDiastoleEjection fractionHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Exercise intolerance in heart failure (HF) predicts both quality of life and survival. Female patients often present with more disabling symptoms. We discovered, in HF, regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a ‘paradoxical’ reflex increase in vasoconstrictive muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) during 1-leg cycling exercise in patients across the spectrum, absent in healthy individuals, and an inverse relationship between MSNA during cycling and exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake; V̇O2peak). Purpose Our present aim was to test the hypothesis that females with HF display a greater ‘paradoxical’ muscle sympatho-excitatory response than males. Methods We investigated 15 female (68±8 yrs; LVEF: 40±16%, range 20-67; BMI: 30±9 kg/m2) and 41 male (64±9 yrs; LVEF: 38±15%, range 15-73; BMI: 29±5 kg/m2) patients with chronic, stable HF, treated for such with contemporary guideline-based medical therapy. In the seated position, we measured heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and MSNA (microneurography) during 2 minutes of baseline rest and 4 minutes of 1-leg cycling (2 minutes each at mild [0 load] and moderate [~30-40% V̇O2peak] intensity). V̇O2peak was obtained by open circuit spirometry during a standard, symptom-limited incremental cycling test (15 W·min-1). Results Resting HR (64±10 vs. 63±10 beats·min-1; P=0.89), systolic BP (115±19 vs. 105±16 mmHg; P=0.09), and diastolic BP (65±12 vs. 64±10 mmHg; P=0.84) did not differ between females and males, respectively. Resting MSNA also was not different between females and males (51±11 vs. 50±11 bursts·min-1; P=0.70), whereas V̇O2peak was lower in females (15±5 vs. 21±8 ml·kg-1·min-1; P<0.01). During 1-leg cycling exercise, HR (+12±6 vs. +10±6 beats·min-1 at moderate cycling) and diastolic BP (+13±10 vs. +7±8 beats·min-1 at moderate cycling) increased similarly in females and males, respectively (both P>0.05), whereas the systolic BP response during moderate cycling was greater in females (+25±22 vs. +15±9 mmHg; P=0.03). Similarly, compared to baseline rest, MSNA increased during mild and moderate cycling in both sexes (all P<0.05), yet the magnitude of response during moderate cycling was greater in females than males (+9±6 vs. +4±10 bursts·min-1; P=0.03). In both sexes, the level of MSNA during moderate intensity cycling related inversely to V̇O2peak, explaining 42% of the variance in females (P<0.01), yet only 10% in males (P=0.05). Conclusions In patients with HF, the ‘paradoxical’ muscle sympathetic vasoconstrictor response to dynamic exercise is more pronounced in females than in males, which likely constrains to a larger extent, skeletal muscle blood flow and increases resistance, thereby contributing to the more severe exercise intolerance observed in female patients. Our findings may help inform novel, female-specific therapeutic strategies designed to reverse such sympathetic disturbances, alleviate symptoms, and improve exercise capacity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→