David J Crull, Iris Mekenkamp, Julia Mikhal, G Maarten-Friso Ruinemans, Marc J van Det, Ewout A Kouwenhoven
{"title":"The Steep Ramp Test as Precursor to Assess Physical Fitness Before Esophagectomy in Cancer Patients.","authors":"David J Crull, Iris Mekenkamp, Julia Mikhal, G Maarten-Friso Ruinemans, Marc J van Det, Ewout A Kouwenhoven","doi":"10.1159/000543029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Maximum oxygen uptake (VO₂max) is a predictor for postoperative complications after esophagectomy. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) is the golden standard for measuring VO₂max. The alternative Steep Ramp Test (SRT) is less strenuous with several benefits, providing an estimation of VO₂max. This study aims to determine whether SRT is a reliable alternative for CPET to evaluate preoperative fitness. Methods A total of 113 patients were included in this study. The agreement between SRT and CPET was analyzed using a t-test, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and the Bland-Altmann analysis. The threshold for adequate preoperative fitness was set at 17.0 ml/kg/min Results The mean difference between CPET and SRT was 2.77 ml/kg/min (95% CI 2.14-3.41). The ICC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.85). The upper limit of agreement of the Bland-Altmann was 9.44. The addition of 9.44 to the CPET-threshold gives an SRT-threshold of 26.44 ml/kg/min. Thirty-one (27.4%) patients scored higher than the SRT-threshold. Conclusion The SRT VO2max differs from VO₂max as measured by CPET. However, the difference was found to be clinically irrelevant for a substantial portion of patients. Hence, SRT is a promising alternative to CPET for determining physical fitness, and might render CPET obsolete for fit individuals.</p>","PeriodicalId":11241,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000543029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Maximum oxygen uptake (VO₂max) is a predictor for postoperative complications after esophagectomy. Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test (CPET) is the golden standard for measuring VO₂max. The alternative Steep Ramp Test (SRT) is less strenuous with several benefits, providing an estimation of VO₂max. This study aims to determine whether SRT is a reliable alternative for CPET to evaluate preoperative fitness. Methods A total of 113 patients were included in this study. The agreement between SRT and CPET was analyzed using a t-test, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and the Bland-Altmann analysis. The threshold for adequate preoperative fitness was set at 17.0 ml/kg/min Results The mean difference between CPET and SRT was 2.77 ml/kg/min (95% CI 2.14-3.41). The ICC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.85). The upper limit of agreement of the Bland-Altmann was 9.44. The addition of 9.44 to the CPET-threshold gives an SRT-threshold of 26.44 ml/kg/min. Thirty-one (27.4%) patients scored higher than the SRT-threshold. Conclusion The SRT VO2max differs from VO₂max as measured by CPET. However, the difference was found to be clinically irrelevant for a substantial portion of patients. Hence, SRT is a promising alternative to CPET for determining physical fitness, and might render CPET obsolete for fit individuals.
期刊介绍:
''Digestive Surgery'' presents a comprehensive overview in the field of gastrointestinal surgery. Interdisciplinary in scope, the journal keeps the specialist aware of advances in all fields that contribute to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disease. Particular emphasis is given to articles that evaluate not only recent clinical developments, especially clinical trials and technical innovations such as new endoscopic and laparoscopic procedures, but also relevant translational research. Each contribution is carefully aligned with the need of the digestive surgeon. Thus, the journal is an important component of the continuing medical education of surgeons who want their practice to benefit from a familiarity with new knowledge in all its dimensions.