4.4 Article

Are cardiovascular and metabolic responses to field walking tests interchangeable and obesity-dependent?

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 38, Issue 18, Pages 1820-1829

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1107645

Keywords

Exercise testing; incremental shuttle walking test; six-minute walk test

Categories

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, Brasilia, DF, Brazil [CNPq 141331/2011-9]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil [FAPESP 2009/01842-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate if cardiovascular and metabolic responses to the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and incremental shuttle walking test (ISWT) are in agreement with cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) and determine if both submaximal tests are interchangeable in obese and eutrophic individuals. Method: Observational and cross-sectional study included 51 obese women (ObG) and 21 controls (CG) (20-45 years old). Subjects underwent clinical evaluation, CPX, the 6MWT and ISWT. We applied Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between walking tests and CPX. Correlation analysis assessed relationships between key variables. Results: There was an agreement between CPX and both the 6MWT [oxygen uptake (VO2 mL kg(-1) min(-1)) = 6.9 (CI: 5.7-8.1), and heart rate (bpm) = 37.0 (CI: 33.3-40.7)] and ISWT [VO2 (mL kg(-1) min(-1)) = 6.1 (CI: 4.9-7.3), and heart rate (bpm) = 36.2 (CI: 32.1-40.3)]. We found similar cardiovascular and metabolic responses to both tests in the ObG but not in the CG. Strong correlations were demonstrated between 6MWT and ISWT variables: VO2 (r = 0.70); dyspnoea (r = 0.80); and leg fatigue (r = 0.70). Conclusions: 6MWT and ISWT may both hold interchangeable clinical value when contrasted with CPX in obese women and may be a viable alternative in the clinical setting when resources and staffing are limited.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available