4.6 Article

Reliability of ventilatory parameters during cycle ergometry in multicentre trials in COPD

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 866-874

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00168708

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; cycle endurance; dyspnoea; exercise testing; lung hyperinflation

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany
  2. Ontario Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied the distribution profiles and repeatability of key exercise performance parameters in the first large multicentre trials to include these measurements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). After a screening visit, 463 subjects with COPD (mean +/- SD forced expiratory volume in 1 s 43 +/- 13% predicted) completed two run-in visits before treatment randomisation. At the run-in visits, measurements were conducted at rest, at a standardised time near end-exercise (isotime) and at peak exercise during constant work rate (CWR) cycle tests at 75% of each individual's maximum work capacity. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the test-retest repeatability of measurements of endurance time (ET), inspiratory capacity (IC), ventilation and dyspnoea intensity (Borg scale) during exercise. IC, ventilation and dyspnoea ratings were normally distributed; ET showed rightward skew (median < mean, skewness of 10.9 (much greater than zero)) with 16% of the sample exceeding 1 SD of the mean. ET was highly repeatable across run-in visits: 7.9 +/- 4.8 and 8.4 +/- 5.1 min (R=0.84). IC values at rest, isotime and peak exercise were all highly repeatable (R >= 0.87). Ventilation was repeatable over the same time-points (R >= 0.92), as was dyspnoea intensity at isotime (R=0.79) and at peak exercise (R=0.81). In conclusion, key perceptual and ventilatory parameters can be reliably measured during CWR cycle exercise in multicentre clinical trials in moderate to very severe COPD.

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