The Steep Ramp Test as Precursor to Assess Physical Fitness Before Esophagectomy in Cancer Patients.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Digestive Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1159/000543029
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.

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
陡斜坡试验作为评估食管癌患者食管癌切除术前体能的先行者。
背景:最大摄氧量(vo2max)是食管切除术后并发症的预测指标。心肺运动测试(CPET)是测量vo2 max的黄金标准。替代陡峭斜坡测试(SRT)不那么费力,有几个好处,提供了vo2max的估计。本研究旨在确定SRT是否是CPET评估术前适应度的可靠替代方法。方法选取113例患者作为研究对象。采用t检验、类内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altmann分析分析SRT与CPET之间的一致性。结果CPET和SRT的平均差异为2.77 ml/kg/min (95% CI 2.14-3.41)。ICC为0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.85)。Bland-Altmann的一致性上限为9.44。在cpet阈值上加上9.44,srt阈值为26.44 ml/kg/min。31例(27.4%)患者得分高于srt阈值。结论SRT VO2max与CPET测量的VO2max存在差异。然而,这种差异在临床上与很大一部分患者无关。因此,SRT是一个很有前途的替代CPET来确定身体健康,并可能使CPET过时适合个人。
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
Digestive Surgery
Digestive Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
25
审稿时长
3 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Impact of robotic surgery on postoperative pancreatic fistula for high-risk pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreatoduodenectomy. Procalcitonin as an early predictive marker for infectious complications after hepatectomy. The Steep Ramp Test as Precursor to Assess Physical Fitness Before Esophagectomy in Cancer Patients. Longer term outcomes of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in the management of acute Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis: A Systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Impact of Early Oral Feeding on Postoperative Outcomes after Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
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