Why the study?
Are maximal and submaximal gas exchange variables derived from cardiopulmonary exercise tests reliable in patients with coronary artery disease?
Are maximal and submaximal gas exchange variables derived from cardiopulmonary exercise tests reliable in patients with coronary artery disease?
Peak VO2 and oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) show excellent test-retest reliability in CAD patients, suggesting OUES is a reliable alternative to evaluate cardiorespiratory fitness when peak VO2 is unavailable or unreliable.
Supports reliability of peak VO2 and OUES in CAD; hypothesis-generating before routine clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: Gas exchange variables derived from cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs) need to be reliable for evaluating interventions and clinical decision making. Whereas peak oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)O2) has shown to be a highly reliable parameter in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), little is known about the reproducibility of these parameters in patients with CAD. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to confirm the reliability of peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 and to investigate the reliability of submaximal CPET variables in patients with CAD. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with CAD (57.6 ± 8.5 years; 79 males) performed 2 CPETs within 10 days before starting a rehabilitation program. Reliability of peak and submaximal exercise variables was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), coefficients of variation, Pearson correlation coefficients, paired t tests, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Maximal and submaximal exercise parameters showed adequate reliability. Overall, there was a good correlation across both testing occasions (r = 0.63-0.95; P < .05 for all). Peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 (ICC, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97) demonstrated excellent reliability. Of the submaximal exercise variables, oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) was as reliable as peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 (ICC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98). The ventilation/carbon dioxide production ((Equation is included in full-text article.)E/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2) slope showed very good test-retest reliability (ICC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) and the (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2/work rate slope showed good reliability (ICC, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Both peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 and OUES show excellent test-retest reliability. Accordingly, in the case of no or unreliable peak (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 data, we suggest using OUES to evaluate cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coeckelberghs et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: