Giancarlo Piaggi , Mara Paneroni , Roberto Maestri , Elisabetta Salvioni , Ugo Corrà , Angelo Caporotondi , Simonetta Scalvini , Piergiuseppe Agostoni , Maria Teresa La Rovere
{"title":"Estimating maximum work rate during cardiopulmonary exercise testing from the six-minute walk distance in patients with heart failure","authors":"Giancarlo Piaggi , Mara Paneroni , Roberto Maestri , Elisabetta Salvioni , Ugo Corrà , Angelo Caporotondi , Simonetta Scalvini , Piergiuseppe Agostoni , Maria Teresa La Rovere","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Exercise is recommended for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and its intensity is usually set as a percentage of the maximal work rate (MWR) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) or a symptom-limited incremental test (SLIT). As these tests are not always available in cardiac rehabilitation due to logistic/cost constraints, we aimed to develop a predictive model to estimate MWR at CPX (estMWR@CPX) in CHF patients using anthropometric and clinical measures and the 6-min walk test (6 MWT), the most widely used exercise field test.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a multicentre cross-sectional retrospective study in a cardiac rehabilitation setting. Six hundred patients with HF in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I-III underwent both CPX and 6 MWT and, <strong>t</strong>hrough multivariable linear regression analysis, we defined several predictive models to define estMWR@CPX.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The best model included 6 MWT, sex, age, weight, NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), smoking status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD (adjusted R<sup>2</sup> = 0.55; 95% LoA −39 to 33 W). When LVEF was excluded as a predictor, the resulting model performed only slightly worse (adjusted R<sup>2</sup> = 0.54; 95% LoA −42 to 34 W). Only in 34% of cases was the percentage difference between estMWR@CPX and real MWR@CPX <10% in absolute value. EstMWR@CPX tended to overestimate low values and underestimate high values of true MWR@CPX.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our results showed a lack of accuracy in the predictive model evaluated; therefore, for an accurate prescription of cycle-ergometer exercise training, it is necessary to assess MWR by CPX or SLIT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 200247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000126/pdfft?md5=f079213dedd81da85e1843c21b3bb4df&pid=1-s2.0-S2772487524000126-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487524000126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Exercise is recommended for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and its intensity is usually set as a percentage of the maximal work rate (MWR) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) or a symptom-limited incremental test (SLIT). As these tests are not always available in cardiac rehabilitation due to logistic/cost constraints, we aimed to develop a predictive model to estimate MWR at CPX (estMWR@CPX) in CHF patients using anthropometric and clinical measures and the 6-min walk test (6 MWT), the most widely used exercise field test.
Methods
This is a multicentre cross-sectional retrospective study in a cardiac rehabilitation setting. Six hundred patients with HF in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I-III underwent both CPX and 6 MWT and, through multivariable linear regression analysis, we defined several predictive models to define estMWR@CPX.
Results
The best model included 6 MWT, sex, age, weight, NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), smoking status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD (adjusted R2 = 0.55; 95% LoA −39 to 33 W). When LVEF was excluded as a predictor, the resulting model performed only slightly worse (adjusted R2 = 0.54; 95% LoA −42 to 34 W). Only in 34% of cases was the percentage difference between estMWR@CPX and real MWR@CPX <10% in absolute value. EstMWR@CPX tended to overestimate low values and underestimate high values of true MWR@CPX.
Conclusions
Our results showed a lack of accuracy in the predictive model evaluated; therefore, for an accurate prescription of cycle-ergometer exercise training, it is necessary to assess MWR by CPX or SLIT.