E xercise testing remains a remarkably durable and versatile tool that provides valuable diagnostic and prognostic information regarding patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. Exercise testing has been available for more than a half century and, like many other cardiovascular procedures, has evolved in its technology and scope. When combined with exercise testing, adjunctive imaging modalities offer greater diagnostic accuracy, additional information regarding cardiac structure and function, and additional prognostic information. Similarly, the addition of ventilatory gas exchange measurements during exercise testing provides a wide array of unique and clinically useful incremental information that heretofore has been poorly understood and underutilized by the practicing clinician. The reasons for this are many and include the requirement for additional equipment (cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPX] systems), personnel who are proficient in the administration and interpretation of these tests, limited or absence of training of cardiovascular specialists and limited training by pulmonary specialists in this technique, and the lack of understanding of the value of CPX by practicing clinicians.Modern CPX systems allow for the analysis of gas exchange at rest, during exercise, and during recovery and yield breath-by-breath measures of oxygen uptake (V O 2 ), carbon dioxide output (V CO 2 ), and ventilation (V E). These advanced computerized systems provide both simple and complex analyses of these data that are easy to retrieve and store, which makes CPX available for widespread use. These data can be readily integrated with standard variables measured during exercise testing, including heart rate, blood pressure, work rate, electrocardiography findings, and symptoms, to provide a comprehensive assessment of exercise tolerance and exercise responses. CPX can even be performed with adjunctive imaging modalities for additional diagnostic assessment. Hence, CPX offers the clinician the ability to obtain a wealth of information beyond standard exercise electrocardiography testing that when appropriately applied and interpreted can assist in the management of complex cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre‐test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non‐cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.