Validation of "CENTR(AR)" walking trails: Different field criteria do not lead to different physical activity intensities in people with COPD

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Heart & Lung Pub Date : 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.04.014
Nicola S. Diciolla PT, M.Sc. , Patrícia Rebelo PT, M.Sc. , Guilherme Rodrigues PT, M.Sc. , Ana Sofia Grave PT, M.Sc. , Cíntia Dias PT, M.Sc. , Maria Gomes PT, M.Sc. , E. Samuel Santos PT, M.Sc. , Zulmira Pereira Eng, M.Sc. , Luísa Pereira Eng, Ph.D. , Alda Marques PT, Ph.D., Prof.
{"title":"Validation of \"CENTR(AR)\" walking trails: Different field criteria do not lead to different physical activity intensities in people with COPD","authors":"Nicola S. Diciolla PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Patrícia Rebelo PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Guilherme Rodrigues PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Ana Sofia Grave PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Cíntia Dias PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Maria Gomes PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;E. Samuel Santos PT, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Zulmira Pereira Eng, M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Luísa Pereira Eng, Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Alda Marques PT, Ph.D., Prof.","doi":"10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.04.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Validating walking trails is essential to promote physical activity (PA) safely and confidently in people with COPD.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>We aimed to validate predetermined light, moderate, and vigorous intensities of walking trails in people with COPD.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This cross-sectional study included individuals with COPD walking in predetermined light, moderate and vigorous intensity trails. Activity intensity and volume outcomes were collected. Dyspnoea and fatigue (modified Borg scale), energy expenditure (EE, Sensewear), heart rate (HR, HR monitor), time spent in different PA intensities, and cadence (ActiGraph) were recorded and used to classify PA intensity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty people with COPD [71(7) years, 80 % male, FEV<sub>1</sub>%predicted 65.6(11.6)] were included. Fatigue differed significantly between light and moderate [3.0(2.0;4.0) vs 3.4(2.5;4.5), <em>p</em> = 0.01], but not vigorous (3.5[2.5–4.0]) tracks. Dyspnoea [2.3(1.5) vs 2.7(1.6) vs 2.6(1.4)], EE [5.1(0.8) vs 4.9(0.5) vs 4.6(0.8) METs], HR [92.5(11.1) vs 93.7(18.6) vs 95.4(15.0) beats/min] and cadence [115.1(104.0;120.3) vs 104.7(99.6;117.6) vs 111.2(99.9;118.5) steps/min] were similar across trails (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). Time spent in light and moderate PA, EE volume, walking time, and step count increased along with the proposed intensity levels (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). Walking trails were categorised as moderate intensity in most participants.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Walking trails were safe and valid for practising moderate-intensity PA in people with COPD. Participants adjusted their physiological responses and perceived symptoms to match a moderate intensity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55064,"journal":{"name":"Heart & Lung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147956324000682/pdfft?md5=7794639e1def1bd3df689db6f80e73df&pid=1-s2.0-S0147956324000682-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart & Lung","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147956324000682","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Validating walking trails is essential to promote physical activity (PA) safely and confidently in people with COPD.

Objectives

We aimed to validate predetermined light, moderate, and vigorous intensities of walking trails in people with COPD.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included individuals with COPD walking in predetermined light, moderate and vigorous intensity trails. Activity intensity and volume outcomes were collected. Dyspnoea and fatigue (modified Borg scale), energy expenditure (EE, Sensewear), heart rate (HR, HR monitor), time spent in different PA intensities, and cadence (ActiGraph) were recorded and used to classify PA intensity.

Results

Twenty people with COPD [71(7) years, 80 % male, FEV1%predicted 65.6(11.6)] were included. Fatigue differed significantly between light and moderate [3.0(2.0;4.0) vs 3.4(2.5;4.5), p = 0.01], but not vigorous (3.5[2.5–4.0]) tracks. Dyspnoea [2.3(1.5) vs 2.7(1.6) vs 2.6(1.4)], EE [5.1(0.8) vs 4.9(0.5) vs 4.6(0.8) METs], HR [92.5(11.1) vs 93.7(18.6) vs 95.4(15.0) beats/min] and cadence [115.1(104.0;120.3) vs 104.7(99.6;117.6) vs 111.2(99.9;118.5) steps/min] were similar across trails (p > 0.05). Time spent in light and moderate PA, EE volume, walking time, and step count increased along with the proposed intensity levels (p < 0.01). Walking trails were categorised as moderate intensity in most participants.

Conclusion

Walking trails were safe and valid for practising moderate-intensity PA in people with COPD. Participants adjusted their physiological responses and perceived symptoms to match a moderate intensity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
验证 "CENTR(AR) "步行路径:不同的实地标准不会导致慢性阻塞性肺病患者的运动强度不同
背景验证步行路径对促进慢性阻塞性肺病患者安全、自信地进行体育锻炼(PA)至关重要。方法这项横断面研究包括慢性阻塞性肺病患者在预先确定的轻度、中度和剧烈强度的步行路径上行走。收集了活动强度和活动量的结果。记录呼吸困难和疲劳(改良博格量表)、能量消耗(EE,Sensewear)、心率(HR,HR 监测器)、在不同运动强度下所花费的时间以及步频(ActiGraph),并用于对运动强度进行分类。结果20 名慢性阻塞性肺病患者[71(7)岁,80% 为男性,FEV1% 预测值为 65.6(11.6)]被纳入研究。轻度和中度[3.0(2.0;4.0) vs 3.4(2.5;4.5),p = 0.01],但剧烈(3.5[2.5-4.0])运动之间的疲劳程度差异明显。呼吸困难[2.3(1.5) vs 2.7(1.6) vs 2.6(1.4)]、EE[5.1(0.8) vs 4.9(0.5) vs 4.6(0.8) METs]、心率[92.5(11.1) vs 93.7(18.6) vs 95.4(15. 0)次/分]和体力消耗[2.3(1.5) vs 2.7(1.6) vs 2.6(1.4)] 。0)次/分] 和步频[115.1(104.0;120.3) vs 104.7(99.6;117.6) vs 111.2(99.9;118.5)步/分]在不同路径上相似(p >0.05)。参与轻度和中度运动的时间、EE 量、步行时间和步数随着所建议的强度水平而增加(p < 0.01)。结论:步行路径对慢性阻塞性肺病患者进行中等强度的体育锻炼既安全又有效。参与者调整了自己的生理反应和感知症状,以适应中等强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Heart & Lung
Heart & Lung 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.60%
发文量
184
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: Heart & Lung: The Journal of Cardiopulmonary and Acute Care, the official publication of The American Association of Heart Failure Nurses, presents original, peer-reviewed articles on techniques, advances, investigations, and observations related to the care of patients with acute and critical illness and patients with chronic cardiac or pulmonary disorders. The Journal''s acute care articles focus on the care of hospitalized patients, including those in the critical and acute care settings. Because most patients who are hospitalized in acute and critical care settings have chronic conditions, we are also interested in the chronically critically ill, the care of patients with chronic cardiopulmonary disorders, their rehabilitation, and disease prevention. The Journal''s heart failure articles focus on all aspects of the care of patients with this condition. Manuscripts that are relevant to populations across the human lifespan are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves. Effects of intubation and hypoxemia on intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants during the first week: An observational study. Association between diet-derived antioxidants and asthma: Insights from the NHANES survey 2003-2018 and Mendelian randomization analysis. Effectiveness and safety of emergency transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis The effects of exercise-based prehabilitation in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1