Why the study?
The range of values reported by different raters for any given ventilatory anaerobic threshold is needed to contextualize changes in intervention studies for children with congenital heart disease.
What is the inter-rater variability in determining the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) from cardiopulmonary exercise tests in children with congenital heart disease?
What is the inter-rater variability in determining the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) from cardiopulmonary exercise tests in children with congenital heart disease?
A change in VO2 at VAT of <6.5% predicted in response to an intervention falls within expected inter-rater variability and should be interpreted with caution in CHD patients.
Rater variability in pediatric CHD VAT warrants caution when powering or interpreting intervention trials; leaves open optimal standardization needs.
Change in the oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) is an important outcome in research studies of children with congenital heart disease (CHD). The range of values reported by different raters for any given VAT is needed to contextualize a change in VAT in intervention studies. Sixty maximal cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) for CHD patients 8–21 years old were independently reviewed by six exercise physiologists and four pediatric cardiologists. For each of the unique rater pairs for the 60 CPETs, the absolute difference in VAT was calculated and displayed on a histogram to demonstrate the distribution of inter-rater variability. This method was repeated for subgroups of test modality (cycle/treadmill), patient factors (diagnoses, exercise capacity), and rater factors (cardiologist/physiologist, years of experience). Rater agreement was good with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79–0.91 but the distribution of differences was broad. The median difference was 2.7 % predicted peak VO 2 (60 mL/min, 1.0 mL/kg/min), the 75th percentile was 6.4 % (140 mL/min, 2.5 mL/kg/min), and the 95th percentile was 16.3 % (421 mL/min, 6.5 mL/kg/min). Distributions were similar for CPET modality and years of rater experience, but differed for other factors. The baseline distribution of reported VAT is relatively broad, varied by units, and was not explained by differences in rater experience or test modality, but varies by patient factors. When evaluating clinical relevance, a change in the VO 2 at VAT in response to an intervention of <6.5 % predicted falls within the majority (75th percentile) of expected variability and should be interpreted with caution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: