Key result
Multiple risk factors linked to higher rates of exercise test abnormalities vs a single factor.
Why the study?
The ACSM exercise testing guidelines were developed using clinical judgement rather than empirical data, necessitating validation with actual test results.
Do empirical data on abnormal exercise test rates validate the ACSM risk stratification guidelines for exercise testing?
Observational (n=24,332)
Do empirical data on abnormal exercise test rates validate the ACSM risk stratification guidelines for exercise testing?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Empirical data from over 24,000 maximal treadmill tests support the risk stratification principles of the ACSM guidelines for exercise testing.
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has published exercise guidelines identifying individuals who should have an exercise test prior to clearance for exercise participation and whether a physician should supervise the test. These age and health status criteria (apparently healthy, higher risk, and diseased) were developed using clinical judgement and opinion rather than empirical data. Thus, there is a need to validate the recommendations with actual data. We studied the results of 24,332 maximal treadmill tests in men (n = 18,076) and women (n = 5,626) as they associated with age and baseline health status. Commonly accepted criteria for abnormal exercise tests were used (i.e., 1 mm ST segment depression at 0.08 s, systolic blood pressure drop with exercise, complex ventricular ectopy, etc.). There were 895 and 183 abnormal exercise tests in men and women, respectively. Men and women who were apparently healthy had lower abnormality rates per 1,000 tests than those considered to be at higher risk for coronary heart disease and those who had preexisting disease. Further, when those who were at higher risk were considered, those men with only one risk factor had significantly lower abnormality rates than did men with more than one risk factor (95% confidence intervals (CI) per 1,000 tests: 1 risk factor = 36.1–46.4;>1 risk factor = 47.5–62.5). Abnormality rates in women with 1 risk factor were also lower than those in their peers with >1 risk factor, but not statistically so (95% CI per 1,000 tests: 1 risk factor = 24.9–43.0; >1 risk factor = 25.3–54.4). Abnormality profiles by 5-yr age groupings by health status category were generated. These data provide an empirical basis for evaluating the ACSM guidelines for exercise testing and prescription.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kohl et al. (1990) conducted an observational in Coronary heart disease risk (n=24,332). Multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease vs. One risk factor or apparently healthy was evaluated on Abnormal exercise test (e.g., 1 mm ST segment depression, systolic blood pressure drop, complex ventricular ectopy). Men with multiple risk factors had significantly higher exercise test abnormality rates than men with only one risk factor (95% CI per 1,000 tests: 47.5–62.5 vs 36.1–46.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: