Key result
Cardio stepper yields lower peak heart rate than cycle ergometry but achieves target stress CMR thresholds.
Why the study?
No data on cardiorespiratory responses exist for the recently developed MR-conditional cardio stepper as an alternative for real time stress CMR.
Does an MR-conditional cardio stepper elicit comparable cardiorespiratory responses to cycle and treadmill ergometry in healthy participants?
RCT (n=46)
Open-label
Crossover
No
Does an MR-conditional cardio stepper elicit comparable cardiorespiratory responses to cycle and treadmill ergometry in healthy participants?
Absolute Event Rate: 170% vs 186%
p-value: p=<0.001
Although the MR-conditional cardio stepper elicits lower maximal cardiorespiratory responses than cycle or treadmill ergometry, it can successfully achieve the target heart rate (>85% of HR max) required for stress CMR.
Enables stress CMR with MR-conditional stepper when cycle or treadmill is impractical; extends validated exercise options for cardiac MR stress testing.
Background: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) represents the gold standard for routine examination of cardiac function and structure evaluation at rest and during exercise as well.Conventional stress CMR includes drug administration to increase heart rate (HR).The recently developed MR-conditional cardio stepper (CS) could be an alternative for real time stress CMR.So far, no data on cardiorespiratory responses exist for this device.Thus, this study evaluated cardiorespiratory responses to exhaustive testing on the CS compared to cycle and treadmill ergometry.Methods: Forty-six healthy participants (24 men, 22 women, age: 31.4 ± 8.9 yrs, height: 174.8 ± 7.2 cm, weight: 70.3 ± 9.4 kg) performed three incremental exercise tests to volitional failure in a randomized crossover trial.Results: Maximal values using the CS were significantly lower when compared to cycle and treadmill ergometry (HR max : 170 ± 13 vs. 186 ± 9 vs. 190 ± 11 bpm, respectively; p<0.05, maximal oxygen uptake: 2971 ± 772 vs. 3531 ± 1023 vs. 3849 ± 1013 ml/min, respectively; p<0.05 and exercise duration: 539 ± 130 vs. 745 ± 157 vs. 710 ± 128 sec, respectively; p<0.05). Conclusions:Although cardiorespiratory responses are not maximal when using the CS, the target heart rate, i.e. >85% of HR max , for a stress CMR can be achieved.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bachler et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=46). MR-conditional cardio stepper vs. Cycle and treadmill ergometry was evaluated on Maximal heart rate (HRmax) (p=<0.001). Although maximal heart rate on the cardio stepper was significantly lower than on cycle and treadmill ergometers (170 vs 186 vs 190 bpm), it successfully achieved the >85% target heart rate required for stress CMR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: