Longitudinal Assessment of Exercise Capacity via Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Heart Failure Patients with Improved and Persistently Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results from the IMPRO2VEMENT-HF Study
Diana Ladera-Santos, José López-Aguilera, Jesús Alberto Torres-Zamudio, Consuelo Fernández-Avilés, Jorge Perea-Armijo, Guillermo Gutiérrez Ballesteros, Gloria Heredia Campos, Luis Carlos Maestre Luque, Rafaela Luque López, Asunción García Merino, Ángela Heredia Torres, Juan Manuel García Medina, José María Segura Saint-Gerons, Álvaro Roldán-Guerra, Manuel Crespín-Crespín, Mónica Delgado-Ortega, Rafael González Manzanares, Dolores Mesa-Rubio, Manuel Pan-Álvarez Osorio, Manuel Anguita-Sánchez, Juan Carlos Castillo-Domínguez, Martín Ruiz-OrtizBackground: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who achieve improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) after guideline-directed medical therapy exhibit superior prognosis. However, functional impairment remains a hallmark of HF. Aims: To characterize and compare exercise capacity profiles via cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) between patients with HFimpEF and those with persistently reduced ejection fraction (HFprEF) using a baseline-adjusted analysis. Methods: Data from a longitudinal cohort of 111 HFrEF patients with baseline and follow-up CPET data (minimum 6-month follow-up) were analyzed. Patients were stratified into HFimpEF and HFprEF groups, according to the Universal Definition of HF. Changes between groups were evaluated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline values, with non-parametric Bootstrapping (2000 resamples) and multiplicity. Results: We included 111 patients: 69 with HFimpEF (62.2%) and 42 with HFprEF (37.8%). At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the HFimpEF group showed significantly greater reverse remodeling (adjusted ΔLVEF +19.9%, p < 0.001) and a greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels (−557.6 pg/mL, p = 0.042). Both groups demonstrated intra-group functional improvements. However, in adjusted between-group ANCOVA models, HFimpEF achieved a significantly greater recovery in percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (adjusted difference: +8.5%; 95% CI: 1.2 to 16.1; p = 0.021). Net adjusted between-group differences for absolute VO2peak gain, submaximal threshold, ventilatory efficiency and recovery kinetics did not reach statistical significance. Multivariate analysis identified older age (beta −0.261, p = 0.010), diabetes mellitus (beta −0.210, p = 0.023) and baseline VO2peak (beta −0.569, p < 0.001) as negative predictors of improvement. Conclusions: Comprehensive HFrEF management improves exercise capacity across all patients. Although HFimpEF yields superior gains in normalized aerobic capacity, overall functional trajectories are largely comparable between phenotypes. This structural-functional decoupling underscores persistent residual limitations in HFimpEF, supporting CPET for longitudinal risk stratification.