4.5 Article

Determinants of poor 6-min walking distance in patients with COPD: The ECLIPSE cohort

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 104, 期 6, 页码 849-857

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2009.12.007

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD; Functional performance; Determinants; 6MWD; 6-min Walking test; Multicentre

资金

  1. Boehnnger Ingelheimand Nycomed
  2. GSK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The 6-min walking test (6MWT) is widely used to assess exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Given the prognostic significance of the 6MWT, it is important to identify why some COPD patients perform poorly in terms of this outcome. We aimed to identify clinical determinants of a poor 6-min walking distance (<350 m) in patients with COPD. Methods: 1795 individuals with a diagnosis of COPD underwent spirometry; bio-electrical impedance analysis; low-dose computed tomography scans of the chest; 6MWT; ATS-DLD comorbidity questionnaire, Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression Scale; COPD-specific St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire; modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale as part of the baseline assessment of the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study. Results: Patients with COPD have significant differences in performance in the 6MWT even after stratification for GOLD stages. Moreover, severe airflow limitation by GOLD stage, degree of emphysema by CT, oxygen use during/after the 6MWT, presence of depressive symptoms and moderate to severe symptoms of dyspnea (mMRC grade >= 2) are significant clinical determinants of poor 6MWD performance (<350 m). Conclusions: The determinants of poor 6MWD are complex and depend on both physical (both pulmonary and non-pulmonary factors) and psychological factors as evaluated from a large multinational cohort of well-characterised patients with clinically stable moderate to very severe COPD. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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