4.4 Article

Low agreement of ventilatory threshold between training modes in cardiac patients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 5, Pages 547-554

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-007-0530-8

Keywords

ventilatory threshold; walking; cycling; cardiac rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In cardiac rehabilitation, different endurance exercises such as walking and cycling are often performed. The training intensity for these modes is determined from a single treadmill or bicycle test by ventilatory threshold ( VT). In this study, differences of VT between walking and cycling and agreement of VT between training modes were assessed in cardiac patients. A total of 46 cardiac rehabilitation patients ( mean age 59.5 +/- 8.4 years, 45 males) ( 31 untrained and 15 trained) completed a maximal exercise test on bicycle and treadmill, with breath-by-breath analysis of oxygen uptake (VO2), carbon dioxide production and expiratory volume. VT was determined by V-slope method. Correlations of VT and VO2peak were calculated between exercise modes. Bland-Altman plots were made for determining VT agreement between modes. VT was significantly different between walking and cycling in trained patients ( P < 0.05), but not in untrained patients ( P > 0.05). When untrained and trained patients were compared, VT correlation was lower (r = 0.50) in the former group, as compared to the latter group ( r = 0.78). Also, Bland-Altman plots showed smaller limits of agreement for VT in trained (2 SD - 1.6 to 7.8 ml/min/kg), as compared to untrained patients ( 2 SD - 7.0 to 9.6 ml/min/kg). In trained patients, VT correlates well between training methods, but is highly exercise mode specific. In untrained patients, VT is not exercise mode specific, but the VT has a low correlation between training modes. This study shows that VT should be assessed by the appropriate exercise model for determining exercise intensity in cardiac rehabilitation.

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