Key result
The 6-minute cycle test is a valid and reliable measure of physical performance in cardiac rehabilitation patients, demonstrating good test-retest reliability.
Why the study?
Is the North Carolina 6-minute cycle test a valid and reliable measure of physical performance compared to the 6-minute walk test in cardiac rehabilitation patients?
Observational (n=101)
Is the North Carolina 6-minute cycle test a valid and reliable measure of physical performance compared to the 6-minute walk test in cardiac rehabilitation patients?
The North Carolina 6-minute cycle test is a valid and reliable alternative to the 6-minute walk test for assessing functional capacity in phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients, particularly for those with lower extremity dysfunction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support cycle testing in lower-extremity limited patients; leaves open prospective outcome validation.
In Brief PURPOSE: The purposes of this investigation were to determine (1) if the 6-minute cycle (6MC) test is a valid and reliable measure of physical performance in cardiac patients and (2) if physiologic responses to the 6-minute walk (6MW) and 6MC tests differ in men and women. METHODS: Subjects were 101 phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients aged 40 to 79 years. Each subject performed a maximal graded exercise test (MGXT), a 6MW test, and three 6MC tests on separate days. RESULTS: Pearson product moment correlation r values ranged from 0.78 to 0.89 (P = .001) when the three 6MC tests were compared with one another, indicating good test/retest reliability. The 6MC tests were all significantly and positively correlated to 6MW distance (P < .01), with r values ranging from 0.55 to 0.59. Each 6MC test was also correlated with maximal graded exercise test total time (P < .01), with r values ranging from 0.51 to 0.63, and with estimated maximal metabolic equivalents (P < .01), with r values ranging from 0.44 to 0.60. Although heart rate, systolic blood pressure, rate-pressure product, and rating of perceived exertion values for men were greater during the 6MC test than during the 6MW test (P < .001), no differences were seen in these parameters between tests in women (P = .166 to.260), with the exception of a greater exercise rating of perceived exertion seen during the 6MC test(P = .009). CONCLUSION: The North Carolina 6MC test seems to provide a valid and reliable measure of functional abilities in phase II cardiac rehabilitation participants. Men generally present with greater heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and rate-pressure product values during this test than dothe women when compared with a standard 6MW test. The North Carolina 6-minute cycle test was shown to provide a valid and reliable measure of functional capacity in phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients. Men generally presented with higher heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and rate-pressure product values than did the women when compared with a standard 6-minute walk test. This test may be a good alternative for patients with lower extremity dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verrill et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Phase II cardiac rehabilitation (n=101). 6-minute cycle (6MC) test vs. 6-minute walk (6MW) test was evaluated on Test/retest reliability of the 6-minute cycle test (r = 0.78 to 0.89, p=0.001). The 6-minute cycle test is a valid and reliable measure of physical performance in cardiac rehabilitation patients, demonstrating good test-retest reliability.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: