Heart Rate Recovery Index and Pulse Wave Velocity in HFpEF: Exploratory Cutoff Values from a Cross-Sectional Study
4 affiliations
- 1Doctoral School, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
- 2Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Timisoara, 13A Gheorghe Adam Street, 300310 Timisoara, Romania
- 3Research Center of the Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Timisoara, 13A Gheorghe Adam Street, 300310 Timisoara, Romania
- 4Cardiology Department, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Eftimie Murgu Square 2, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging to diagnose, and established algorithms such as HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF frequently classify patients within intermediate probability categories requiring additional testing. Arterial stiffness and cardiac autonomic dysfunction are increasingly recognized as relevant components of HFpEF pathophysiology, yet the combined discriminatory value of pulse wave velocity (PWV) and heart rate recovery index (HRRI) has not been well established. This study aimed to evaluate the individual and combined discriminatory performance of PWV and HRRI for HFpEF and to assess their incremental contribution beyond established clinical risk factors. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study, 180 participants were included, comprising 86 patients with HFpEF and 94 participants without heart failure. Group allocation was clinically assigned by the treating cardiologist with access to PWV and HRRI results. PWV was assessed non-invasively using an oscillometric device, and HRRI was derived from standardized cycle ergometer exercise testing. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and likelihood-ratio testing were performed to assess independent associations and incremental model contribution. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the influence of age modelling and beta-blocker use. Results: Both PWV and HRRI were independently associated with clinically assigned HFpEF status after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and atrial fibrillation (adjusted OR 1.330 per 1 m/s increase in PWV and 0.857 per 0.1-unit increase in HRRI; both p ≤ 0.023). PWV and HRRI demonstrated AUCs of 0.770 and 0.792, respectively, with Youden index-derived cutoff values of ≥9.60 m/s and ≤1.97. Their combination significantly improved discrimination compared with either marker alone (AUC 0.833). Adding both markers to the clinical model improved model fit, but the AUC increase from 0.865 to 0.896 was not statistically significant after Holm adjustment (adjusted p = 0.132). The associations of both markers with HFpEF remained essentially unchanged after adjustment for beta-blocker therapy. Conclusions: PWV and HRRI were associated with clinically assigned HFpEF status; the observed discrimination does not establish independently validated diagnostic accuracy. Incremental discrimination beyond clinical characteristics and clinical usefulness remain to be established. The cutoff values are exploratory and should not be used as clinical decision thresholds without formal measurement reliability assessment and independent prospective validation.
Related
- Establishment of epidemiological cutoff values for yeast-phase Talaromyces marneffei against six antifungal agents: a multicenter study in China
- Longitudinal Data on Chinese Children Suggest That Cutoff Values for Defining Premyopia Should Be Age- and Location-Specific
- Real-world optimization of cutoff values for enzyme immunoassay-based plasma-free fractionated metanephrines for the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: a multicenter retrospective study
- Exploratory Associations of Heart Rate and Running Velocity at Fixed Blood Lactate Concentrations with Sprint and Jump Performance in Male U19 Soccer Players
- Evaluation of cardiovascular risk using smartwatch-measured pulse wave velocity in China: a nationwide cross-sectional study
BibTeX
@article{suciu2026heart,
title = {{Heart Rate Recovery Index and Pulse Wave Velocity in HFpEF: Exploratory Cutoff Values from a Cross-Sectional Study}},
author = {Bogdan-Simion Suciu and Oana Pătru and Silvia Luca and Adelina Andreea Faur-Grigori and Bogdan Enache and Dragoș Cozma},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218363},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8363},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Heart Rate Recovery Index and Pulse Wave Velocity in HFpEF: Exploratory Cutoff Values from a Cross-Sectional Study
AU - Bogdan-Simion Suciu
AU - Oana Pătru
AU - Silvia Luca
AU - Adelina Andreea Faur-Grigori
AU - Bogdan Enache
AU - Dragoș Cozma
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218363
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8363
AB - Background/Objectives: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging to diagnose, and established algorithms such as HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF frequently classify patients within intermediate probability categories requiring additional testing. Arterial stiffness and cardiac autonomic dysfunction are increasingly recognized as relevant components of HFpEF pathophysiology, yet the combined discriminatory value of pulse wave velocity (PWV) and heart rate recovery index (HRRI) has not been well established. This study aimed to evaluate the individual and combined discriminatory performance of PWV and HRRI for HFpEF and to assess their incremental contribution beyond established clinical risk factors. Methods: In this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study, 180 participants were included, comprising 86 patients with HFpEF and 94 participants without heart failure. Group allocation was clinically assigned by the treating cardiologist with access to PWV and HRRI results. PWV was assessed non-invasively using an oscillometric device, and HRRI was derived from standardized cycle ergometer exercise testing. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and likelihood-ratio testing were performed to assess independent associations and incremental model contribution. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the influence of age modelling and beta-blocker use. Results: Both PWV and HRRI were independently associated with clinically assigned HFpEF status after adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and atrial fibrillation (adjusted OR 1.330 per 1 m/s increase in PWV and 0.857 per 0.1-unit increase in HRRI; both p ≤ 0.023). PWV and HRRI demonstrated AUCs of 0.770 and 0.792, respectively, with Youden index-derived cutoff values of ≥9.60 m/s and ≤1.97. Their combination significantly improved discrimination compared with either marker alone (AUC 0.833). Adding both markers to the clinical model improved model fit, but the AUC increase from 0.865 to 0.896 was not statistically significant after Holm adjustment (adjusted p = 0.132). The associations of both markers with HFpEF remained essentially unchanged after adjustment for beta-blocker therapy. Conclusions: PWV and HRRI were associated with clinically assigned HFpEF status; the observed discrimination does not establish independently validated diagnostic accuracy. Incremental discrimination beyond clinical characteristics and clinical usefulness remain to be established. The cutoff values are exploratory and should not be used as clinical decision thresholds without formal measurement reliability assessment and independent prospective validation.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -