Study estimates cardiorespiratory fitness in individuals with spinal cord injury, suggesting a practical application in clinical settings.
Purpose: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), commonly assessed by peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), is widely recognized as an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.However, direct assessment is resource-intensive and may not be feasible in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).This study aimed to develop and validate an SCI-specific nonexercise model to estimate CRF.Methods: Thirty-seven individuals with SCI underwent direct CRF assessment using VO 2 peak measured during a graded arm-crank ergometer test with gas analysis.Estimated CRF was derived using multivariable linear regression.Candidate factors included demographic, anthropometric, physiological, injury-related, and physical activity variables.Agreement between measured and estimated VO 2 peak was evaluated using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.Results: Participants (mean age, 46.7±9.2 years; 25 male and 12 female participants) had a mean measured VO2peak of 16.1±6.1 mL•kg -1 •min -1 .The final model included injury level, waist circumference, heart rate, and total physical activity, and showed moderate explanatory performance (adjusted r 2 =0.645, root mean square error=3.36).The resulting equation for estimating VO 2 peak was: VO 2 peak=17.80-7.26(tetraplegia)-0.11(waist circumference)+ 0.12 (heart rate)+ 0.19 (total physical activity).Estimated VO2peak was strongly associated with measured VO 2 peak (r=0.83,p< 0.001), and Bland-Altman analysis showed no clear systematic bias.Conclusion: This SCI-specific nonexercise CRF estimation model demonstrated moderate explanatory performance using clinically accessible variables.These findings suggest that the model may provide a practical approach for estimating VO 2 peak in clinical and rehabilitation settings when direct assessment is not feasible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: