心力衰竭中的运动能力:射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)和射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)在峰值摄氧量(VOpeak)和6分钟步行距离方面差异的系统评价与荟萃分析
Exercise capacity in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of HFrEF and HFpEF disparities in VOpeak and 6-minute walking distance.
作者信息
Prokopidis Konstantinos, Irlik Krzysztof, Ispoglou Theocharis, Ferentinos Panagiotis, Mitropoulos Alexandros, Schlögl Mathias, Isanejad Masoud, Kegler Kamil, Nabrdalik Katarzyna, Lip Gregory Y H
机构信息
Department of Musculoskeletal Ageing and Science, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby St, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK.
Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science at University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Thomas Dr, Liverpool L14 3PE, UK.
出版信息
Eur Heart J Open. 2025 May 14;5(3):oeaf055. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf055. eCollection 2025 May.
AIMS
Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit unique physiological pathways, influencing exercise capacity and functional performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare peak oxygen consumption (VO), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), cardiac output (CO), and stroke volume (SV), between these phenotypes.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic literature search of cohort studies via databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until October 2024. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effects was employed. Forty-six studies were included. HFrEF patients demonstrated significantly greater 6MWD compared to HFpEF ( = 20; mean difference (MD): 18.09 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-34.59, I = 86%, = 0.03), though this difference became insignificant after adjusting for comorbidities. Conversely, HFpEF patients exhibited higher VO ( = 20; MD: -0.78 mL/kg/min, 95% CI -1.45--0.11, I = 89%, = 0.02), CO ( = 12; MD: -1.15 L/min, 95% CI -2.11--0.19, I = 97%, = 0.02), and SV ( = 14; SMD: -1.00, 95% CI -1.60--0.39, I = 95%, < 0.01). Age was identified as a significant moderator of VO.
CONCLUSION
HFpEF patients demonstrated superior VO, CO, and SV compared to HFrEF patients, while the observed 6MWD advantage in HFrEF was likely influenced by comorbidities. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailoring rehabilitation strategies to HF phenotype-specific physiological profiles, particularly focusing on improving VO and cardiac efficiency in HFpEF.
目的
射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)和射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)表现出独特的生理途径,影响运动能力和功能表现。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较这两种表型之间的峰值耗氧量(VO)、六分钟步行距离(6MWD)、心输出量(CO)和每搏输出量(SV)。
方法和结果
通过数据库(PubMed、科学网、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆)对队列研究进行系统文献检索,检索时间从开始至2024年10月。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析以计算合并效应。纳入了46项研究。与HFpEF患者相比,HFrEF患者的6MWD显著更长( = 20;平均差(MD):18.09米,95%置信区间(CI)1.59 - 34.59,I = 86%, = 0.03),不过在调整合并症后这种差异变得不显著。相反,HFpEF患者表现出更高的VO( = 20;MD: - 0.78毫升/千克/分钟,95% CI - 1.45 - - 0.11,I = 89%, = 0.02)、CO( = 12;MD: - 1.15升/分钟,95% CI - 2.11 - - 0.19,I = 97%, = 0.02)和SV( = 14;标准化均数差(SMD): - 1.00,95% CI - 1.60 - - 0.39,I = 95%, < 0.01)。年龄被确定为VO的显著调节因素。
结论
与HFrEF患者相比,HFpEF患者表现出更高的VO、CO和SV,而HFrEF患者观察到的6MWD优势可能受合并症影响。我们的研究结果强调了根据HF表型特异性生理特征制定康复策略的重要性,特别是专注于改善HFpEF患者的VO和心脏效率。