Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 29;8(7):e010114. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010114

Table 4.

Cardiac Volume Analysis at Rest and Peak Exercise

HFpEF (n=30) HT (n=17) Healthy (n=17) P Value (Overall) P Values for 2‐Way Comparisons if Overall Significant
HFpEF vs HT HFpEF vs Healthy HT vs Healthy
LVEDV rest, mL 91.6 (3.1) 104.1 (5.0) 90.5 (3.9) 0.04 0.03 0.83 0.04
LVEDV peak exercise, mL 93.1 (3.3) 111.5 (5.2) 99.3 (4.0) 0.008 0.003a 0.24 0.07
ΔLVEDV, mL 1.5 (1.8) 6.1 (2.4) 8.8 (2.0) 0.001 0.01a 0.0006a 0.38
SV rest, mL 59.5 (2.0) 67.6 (3.1) 59.3 (2.5) 0.048 0.03 0.95 0.05
SV peak exercise, mL 63.5 (2.2) 78.2 (3.7) 70.0 (2.6) 0.001 0.0007a 0.06 0.08
ΔSV, mL 1.0 (1.4) 9.6 (1.8) 10.7 (1.7) <0.0001 <0.001a <0.001a 0.66

Values are mean (SEM). HFpEF indicates heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HT, hypertensive controls; LVEDV, left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; SV, stroke volume; ΔLVEDV (mL), LVEDV peak exercise−LVEDV rest; ΔLVEDV, change in left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; ΔSV (mL), SV peak exercise−SV rest. ΔSV, change in stroke volume.

a

P (adjusted)≤0.017. Patients with HFpEF failed to increase end diastolic volume and therefore stroke volume with exercise, in contrast to hypertensive and healthy controls.