4.2 Article

Prescribing walking training in interstitial lung disease from the 6-minute walk test

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 39, Issue 4, Pages 873-877

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2022.2029992

Keywords

Pulmonary rehabilitation; interstitial lung disease; 6-minute walk test; exercise prescription; exercise training

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates whether walking training prescribed at 80% of the average speed of the 6-minute walk test is suitable for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD). The results show that walking training at this intensity can provide adequate exercise training for PR in ILD patients.
Introduction and Objective Endurance training during PR requires exercise prescription at sufficient intensity to achieve physiological benefits. This analysis sought to investigate whether walking training prescribed from 6-minute walk test (6MWT) average speed provides an appropriate training intensity for people with ILD during PR. Methods Individuals with ILD completed cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and 6MWT in random order. A 10-minute constant speed treadmill walk test (10MTW) was undertaken at 80% of the average 6MWT speed. Oxygen uptake (VO2) was measured during all tests. Percentage VO(2)peak during 10MTW was main outcome measure. Results Eleven people with ILD (age 71 (8) years; forced vital capacity 73 (18) %predicted, 6-minute walk distance 481 (99) meters, and VO(2)peak during CPET 1.3 (0.2) L.min(-1)) undertook testing. Average VO(2)peak during 10MTW was 91 (18) % of CPET VO(2)peak [range 67-116%]. Participants who achieved a greater VO(2)peak during CPET walked at a smaller %VO(2)peak during 10MTW (r = -0.6; p = .04). Conclusions For people with ILD, walking training prescribed at 80% of 6MWT average speed can provide adequate exercise training intensity for PR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available