4.6 Article

Reference Values for Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Patients Aged 6 to 18 Years

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113770

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed reference values for cardiorespiratory fitness in children aged 6-18 years without underlying heart disease, measured by peak oxygen uptake and treadmill time. Fitness levels increased with age in males but not females. Males generally exhibited higher fitness levels compared to females in the same age groups.
Objective To develop reference values for cardiorespiratory fitness, as quantified by peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and treadmill time, in patients aged 6 through 18 years referred for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Study Design We reviewed a clinical pediatric CPET database for fitness data in children aged 6-18 years with no underlying heart disease. CPET was obtained via the Bruce protocol utilizing objectively confirmed maximal effort via respiratory exchange ratio. Fitness data (VO2peak and treadmill test duration) were analyzed to determine age- and sex-specific reference values for this pediatric cohort. Results Data from 2025 pediatric CPETs (53.2% female) were included in the analyses. VO2peak increased with age in males, but not females. Treadmill test duration increased with age in both males and females. Fitness was generally higher in males when compared with females in the same age groups. Conclusions Our study provides extensive reference values for both VO2peak and total treadmill test time via the Bruce protocol for a pediatric population without known cardiac disease. Furthermore, the inclusion of objectively confirmed maximal exercise effort increases confidence in these findings compared with prior studies in this area. Clinicians performing CPET in pediatric populations can utilize these reference values to characterize test results according to representative peer data. (J Pediatr 2024;264:113770).

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

4.6
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