Why the study?
Do metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate exercise intensity and metabolic cost in post-myocardial infarction patients compared to healthy controls?
Cross-Sectional (n=31)
Do metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate exercise intensity and metabolic cost in post-myocardial infarction patients compared to healthy controls?
METs underestimate the anaerobic contribution to exercise in post-MI patients, suggesting they should be used with caution when prescribing exercise intensity in cardiac rehabilitation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
METs may underestimate anaerobic cost in post-MI patients; leaves open whether intensity metrics need adjustment in cardiac rehab.
Aims To explore: (1) whether during exercise metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate the intensity and/or metabolic cost for post-myocardial infarction (MI) males and (2) whether post-exercise VO 2 parameters provide insight into the intensity and/or metabolic cost of the prior exercise. Methods 15 male phase-IV post-MIs (64.4±6.5 years) and 16 apparently healthy males (63.0±6.4 years) participated. Participants performed a graded cycle ergometer test (CET) of 50, 75 and 100 W, followed by 10 min active recovery (at 50 W) and 22 min seated recovery. Participants’ heart rate (HR, bpm), expired air parameters and ratings of perceived exertion (exercise only) were measured. Results General linear model analysis showed throughout significantly lower HR values in post-MI participants that were related to β-blocker medication ( F (2,5) =18.47, p<0.01), with significantly higher VCO 2 /VO 2 ( F (2,5) =11.25, p<0.001) and gross kcals/LO 2 /min ( F (2,5) =11.25, p<0.001). Analysis comparing lines of regression showed, during the CET: post-MI participants worked at higher percentage of their anaerobic threshold (%AT)/MET than controls ( F (2,90) =18.98, p<0.001), as well as during active recovery (100–50 W) ( F (2,56) =20.81, p<0.001); during seated recovery: GLM analysis showed significantly higher values of VCO 2 /VO 2 for post-MI participants compared with controls ( F (2,3) =21.48, p=0.001) as well as gross kcals/LO 2 /min ( F (2,3) =21.48, p=0.001). Conclusion Since METs take no consideration of any anaerobic component, they failed to reflect the significantly greater anaerobic contribution during exercise per MET for phase-IV post-MI patients. Given the anaerobic component will be greater for those with more severe forms of cardiac disease, current METs should be used with caution when determining exercise intensity in any patient with cardiac disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woolf‐May et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in post-myocardial infarction (n=31). Graded cycle ergometer test vs. Apparently healthy males was evaluated on percentage of anaerobic threshold (%AT)/MET during CET (p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: