4.4 Article

Reproducibility of the 6-Minute Walk Test for Ambulatory Oxygen Prescription

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 121-127

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000220343

关键词

Ambulatory oxygen; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Oxygen inhalational therapy; Walk test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ambulatory oxygen is frequently prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have oxygen desaturation <= 88% during exercise. The 6-min walk test (6MWT) with continuous pulse oximetry monitoring is a common method to document this oxygen desaturation, but the reproducibility of this test in determining the need for ambulatory oxygen in patients with COPD is not well documented. Objective: The aim of this study was to establish the reproducibility of the 6MWT in determining the need for ambulatory oxygen prescription in stable COPD patients using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) criteria for ambulatory oxygen prescription. Methods: The study was designed as a prospective observational study in an academic health center and associated pulmonary rehabilitation program. Eighty-eight COPD patients referred to pulmonary rehabilitation underwent continuous pulse oximetry while performing standard 6MWT on 3 separate days. Results: Fifty-one (58%) of these patients desaturated by continuous pulse oximetry to an Spo(2) <= 88% on a least one of the 6MWTs. Only 26 patients (30%) demonstrated consistency in meeting the criteria for ambulatory oxygen set forth by the CMS on all three 6MWT with a kappa statistic of 0.62. The percent agreement between 6MWTs for ambulatory oxygen prescription was 72% and the paired observation was 51%. Conclusions: The 6MWT distance is simple and widely used as a consistent measure of functional capacity in patients with COPD; however, the 6MWT oxygen saturation has only modest reproducibility in determining the need for ambulatory oxygen in stable COPD patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据