Key result
Field test HRmax equations show high agreement with CPET in post-stroke patients.
Why the study?
To develop and validate two maximum heart rate prediction equations based on field tests for individuals after stroke.
Do HRmax prediction equations based on 6MWT and ISWT accurately estimate HRmax compared to CPET in individuals after stroke?
Observational (n=80)
Do HRmax prediction equations based on 6MWT and ISWT accurately estimate HRmax compared to CPET in individuals after stroke?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.85 (95% CI 0.63-0.94)
p-value: p=<0.0001
Two newly developed HRmax prediction equations based on the 6MWT and ISWT provide valid estimates of maximum heart rate for aerobic exercise prescription in stroke survivors.
May support field-test HRmax equations for post-stroke exercise prescription; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Objectives 1) to develop two maximum heart rate (HRmax) prediction equations for individuals after stroke; 2) to investigate its validity.Methods The HRmax was obtained by a Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET). Participants also completed the Six-minute Walking Test (6MWT) and the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test (ISWT).Results 60 individuals (54(12) years; 64(69) months after stroke) were included. Twenty individuals (58(10) years; 67(61) months after stroke) were included in the cross-validation group. For the first model, the following equation was generated (equation-1): HRmax= 87.655 + 0.726 (HRpeak in the 6MWT) − 0.386 (age in years), (R2=0.53; Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE)= 15.35; p < 0.0001). For the second model, the following equation was generated (equation-2): HRmax= 96.523 + 0.681 (HRpeak in the ISWT) − 0.039 (walking distance in meters in the ISWT) − 0.400 (age in years), (R2=0.53; SEE = 15.51; p < 0.0001). Significant and high magnitude agreement was found between the HRmax obtained by the CPET and the predicted HRmax by equation-1 (ICC= 0.85; 95% CI= 0.63 − 0.94) and equation-2 (ICC= 0.72; 95% CI= 0.29 − 0.89).Conclusions Two HRmax prediction equations have been developed and showed adequate validity. Professionals will have the option of choosing one of the two equations to use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reis et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Stroke (n=80). Maximum heart rate prediction equations based on field tests vs. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) was evaluated on Agreement between predicted HRmax and HRmax obtained by CPET (ICC 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-0.94, p=<0.0001). Maximum heart rate prediction equations based on field tests showed high agreement with cardiopulmonary exercise testing in individuals after stroke (ICC 0.85; 95% CI 0.63-0.94 for equation 1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: