Key result
Cumulative cardiovascular risk factors (>6) were inversely associated with VO2max (P=0.008), which strongly correlated with 6MWT distance (r=0.90; 95% CI 0.88-0.91; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Indonesia, prompting an evaluation of how cumulative cardiovascular risk factors affect functional capacity using the 6MWT and estimated VO2max in a high-risk primary care population.
Does a higher cumulative burden of cardiovascular risk factors reduce functional capacity (6MWT distance and estimated VO2max) in an at-risk primary care population in Indonesia?
Cross-Sectional (n=679)
Yes
Does a higher cumulative burden of cardiovascular risk factors reduce functional capacity (6MWT distance and estimated VO2max) in an at-risk primary care population in Indonesia?
Cumulative cardiovascular risk factors are inversely associated with estimated VO2max and functional capacity on the six-minute walk test in a high-risk Indonesian primary care cohort, underscoring the need for early risk factor management.
Indicates impaired functional capacity in this cohort; leaves open whether 6MWT informs prognosis or management.
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major global health concern and a leading cause of death in Indonesia. Purpose This study aimed to assess how cumulative cardiovascular risk factors affect functional capacity, using the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and estimated maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) in a high-risk population at primary care centers. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at 47 primary health centers in Makassar, Indonesia, from June to December 2021. We enrolled individuals with one or more cardiovascular risk factors. Functional capacity was evaluated using the 6MWT, and VO2max was estimated with validated equations. Risk factors including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, obesity, family history of CVD, sedentary lifestyle, and poor diet—were collected from medical records, patient interviews, and examinations. Statistical analyses explored the relationship between the number of risk factors and both 6MWT performance and VO2max. Results Among 679 participants, the mean age was 52.3 ± 10.2 years, with 80.1% being female. Hypertension, obesity, and smoking were the most prevalent risk factors. Over half (58.6%) had 4-6 risk factors. The average 6MWT distance was 379.0 ± 97.5 meters, below the healthy range, and the average VO2max was 15.6 ± 5.3 ml/kg/min, indicating poor functional capacity in majority of the participants. Traditional risk factors, including sex, age, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and a sedentary life had a significant impact on 6MWT distance and estimated VO2max (p<0.05). A strong positive correlation was found between VO2max and 6MWT distance (r=0.90, 95%CI 0.88-0.91, p<0.001), while a significant inverse relationship was noted between the number of cardiovascular risk factors and VO2max, with those having more than 6 risk factors showing significantly lower VO2max (p = 0.008). Conclusions This study underscores the substantial impact of cardiovascular risk factors on functional capacity and aerobic fitness. The inverse relationship between the number of risk factors and VO2max highlights the critical need for early identification and proactive management to improve functional capacity and long-term health outcomes in at-risk populations.6MWT distance and VO2maxNetwork mapping
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qanitha et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk factors (n=679). Cumulative cardiovascular risk factors vs. Fewer cardiovascular risk factors (≤6 risk factors) was evaluated on Functional capacity assessed by six-minute walk test (6MWT) distance and estimated maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) (r=0.90, 95% CI 0.88-0.91, p=<0.001). Cumulative cardiovascular risk factors (>6) were inversely associated with VO2max (P=0.008), which strongly correlated with 6MWT distance (r=0.90; 95% CI 0.88-0.91; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: