4.3 Article

Assessment of exercise capacity among asthmatic and healthy adolescents

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 252-258

出版社

ASSOCIACAO BRASILEIRA PESQUISA POS-GRADUACAO FISIOTERAPIA-ABRAPG-FT
DOI: 10.1590/S1413-35552010000300005

关键词

asthma; spirometry; muscle fatigue; dyspnea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To compare the physical performance and responses obtained in the six-minute walking test (6MVVT) and the six-minute step test (6MST) between asthmatic and healthy adolescents; and to investigate the relationship between the responses obtained in the tests and the body mass index (BMI), physical activity level and spirometric variables. Methods: Nineteen asthmatic adolescents (AG) and 19 healthy adolescents (HG) of both sexes, aged between 11 and 15 years, were assessed by means of spirometry, the 6MWT and the 6MST, and their physical activity levels were quantified using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Results: The AG had poorer physical performance, lower heart rate (HR) and greater lower-limb (LL) fatigue in the 6MST. In the 6MVVT, the AG had positive correlations between walked distance (WD) and duration of intense activity, and between HR and BMI, whereas the HG had positive correlations between WD and HR and between WD and respiratory rate (RR). In the 6MST, the AG showed positive correlations between RR and maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and between duration of moderate activity and physical performance. The AG also showed negative correlations between physical performance in the 6MST and BMI, and between sensation of dyspnea and duration of walking. Also in the 6MST, the HG showed positive correlations between RR and MVV, and between BMI and LL fatigue (P <= 0.05). Conclusion: The 6MST demonstrated differences in exercise capacity between the asthmatic and healthy individuals. Furthermore, the physical performance and responses obtained in the tests were correlated with the MVV, BMI and physical activity level.

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

4.3
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