4.5 Article

A questionnaire-based assessment of daily physical activity in heart failure

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages 577-584

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2003.11.022

Keywords

physical activity; congestive heart failure; questionnaire; health status

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Type and dose of daily energy expenditure (DEE) play a major role in modulations of health status and an increased knowledge of these dimensions of physical activity in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients would be valuable for clinical and epidemiological aims. We propose a new self-administered DEE questionnaire adapted to CHIT patients and tested its validity. One hundred and five stable CHF participants, NYHA class I-IV, LVEF = 33.2 +/- 6.1% performed an incremental symptom-limited VO2 (peak) test and filled in the questionnaire for DEE calculation. Reproducibility (n = 24), sensitivity (n = 21) of the questionnaire and inter-observer variability (n = 105) were tested. Intensity levels were identified from DEE and their relationships to VO2(peak), ventilatory and anthropometric characteristics were assessed by simple and multiple regression models. Reproducibility and sensitivity were high (r = 0.98 and 0.88, respectively, P < 0.0001) and inter-observer error reached 1.37%. DEE was highly correlated to physical activity energy expenditure (r = 0.96, P < 0.0001). Relationships between DEE, VO2(peak), V-E/VO2 and anthropometric characteristics were significant. An activity level above 3 MET was the best intensity criteria related to VO2(peak) (r = 0.62, P < 0.0001) and DEE (r=0.80, P < 0.0001). The questionnaire seems reproducible, sensible and valid for DEE estimation. VO2(peak) appears related to DEE and especially to activities above 3 MET in CHF. (C) 2004 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available