4.5 Review

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CARDIOPULMONARY EXERCISE TESTING POST STROKE: ARE WE ADHERING TO PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS?

Journal

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 10, Pages 881-900

Publisher

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2031

Keywords

stroke; cardiopulmonary exercise testing; systematic review; cardiopulmonary exercise tests; oxygen uptake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To systematically review the use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in people who have survived a stroke. The following questions are addressed: (i) What are the testing procedures used? (ii) What are the patient, safety and outcomes characteristics in the cardiopulmonary exercise testing procedures? (iii) Which criteria are used to determine maximum oxygen uptake (VO2peak/max) in the cardiopulmonary exercise testing procedures? Methods: Systematic review of studies of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in stroke survivors. PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception until January 2014. MeSH headings and keywords used were: oxygen capacity, oxygen consumption, oxygen uptake, peak VO2, max VO2, aerobic fitness, physical fitness, aerobic capacity, physical endurance and stroke. Search and selection were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Sixty studies were scrutinized, including 2,104 stroke survivors. Results: Protocols included treadmill (n = 21), bicycle (n = 33), stepper (n = 3) and arm (n = 1) ergometry. Five studies reported 11 adverse events (1%). Secondary outcomes were reported in few studies, which hampered interpretation of the patient's effort, and hence the value of the VO2peak. Conclusion: Most studies did not adhere, or insufficiently adhered, to the existing cardiopulmonary exercise testing guidelines for exercise testing. Thus, the results of cardiopulmonary exercise testing protocols in stroke patients cannot be compared.

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