Key result
A constant load protocol was noninferior to an incremental step protocol for determining peak cardiac output (17.1 vs 16.8 L·min-1; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.72 L·min-1).
Why the study?
It was unknown whether peak cardiac output elicited by a constant load protocol is noninferior to an incremental step protocol using inert gas rebreathing.
Does a constant load exercise protocol elicit a noninferior peak cardiac output compared to an incremental step protocol in healthy adults?
RCT (n=34)
Crossover
Does a constant load exercise protocol elicit a noninferior peak cardiac output compared to an incremental step protocol in healthy adults?
A constant load exercise protocol is noninferior to an incremental step protocol for determining peak cardiac output using inert gas rebreathing, offering a more time-efficient testing alternative.
Constant load protocols enable time-efficient peak cardiac output assessment; extends methodological options for clinicians and researchers in healthy adults.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare Q˙peak elicited by a constant load protocol ( Q˙CL ) and an incremental step protocol ( Q˙step ). METHODS: A noninferiority randomized crossover trial was used to compare Q˙peak between protocols using a noninferiority margin of 0.5 L·min -1 . Participants ( n = 34 (19 female, 15 male); 25 ± 5 yr) performed two baseline V̇O 2peak tests to determine peak heart rate (HR peak ) and peak work rate ( Wpeak ). Participants then performed the Q˙CL and Q˙step protocols each on two separate occasions with the order of the four visits randomized. Q˙peak was measured using IGR (Innocor; COSMED, Rome, Italy). The Q˙CL protocol involved a V̇O 2peak test followed 10 min later by cycling at 90% Wpeak , with IGR initiated after 2 min. Q˙step involved an incremental step test with IGR initiated when the participant's HR reached 5 bpm below their HR peak . The first Q˙CL and Q˙step tests were compared for noninferiority, and the second series of tests was used to measure repeatability (typical error (TE)). RESULTS: The Q˙CL protocol was noninferior to Q˙step ( Q˙CL = 17.1 ± 3.2, Q˙step = 16.8 ± 3.1 L·min -1 ; 95% confidence intervals, -0.16 to 0.72 L·min -1 ). The baseline V̇O 2peak (3.13 ± 0.83 L·min -1 ) was achieved during Q˙CL (3.12 ± 0.72, P = 0.87) and Q˙step (3.12 ± 0.80, P = 0.82). The TE values for Q˙peak were 6.6% and 8.3% for Q˙CL and Q˙step , respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Q˙CL protocol was noninferior to Q˙step and may be more convenient because of the reduced time commitment to perform the measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bostad et al. (2023) reported an RCT. Constant load protocol (Q˙CL) vs. Incremental step protocol (Q˙step) was evaluated on Peak cardiac output (Q˙peak) (95% CI -0.16 to 0.72). A constant load protocol was noninferior to an incremental step protocol for determining peak cardiac output (17.1 vs 16.8 L·min-1; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.72 L·min-1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: