European journal of preventive cardiology · 2024
Accurate prediction equations for ventilatory thresholds in cardiometabolic disease when gas exchange analysis is unavailable: development and validation.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Milani Juliana Goulart Prata Oliveira, Milani Mauricio, Machado Felipe Vilaça Cavallari, Wilhelm Matthias, Marcin Thimo, D'Ascenzi Flavio, Cavigli Luna, Keytsman Charly, Falter Maarten, Bonnechere Bruno, Meesen Raf, Braga Fabrício, Cipriano Graziella França Bernardelli, Cornelissen Veronique, Verboven Kenneth, Cipriano Junior Gerson, Hansen Dominique
Аннотация
AIMS: To develop and validate equations predicting heart rate (HR) at the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VTs) and an optimized range-adjusted prescription for patients with cardiometabolic disease (CMD). To compare their performance against guideline-based exercise intensity domains.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Cross-sectional study involving 2868 CMD patients from nine countries. HR predictive equations for first and second VTs (VT1, VT2) were developed using multivariate linear regression with 975 cycle-ergometer cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). 'Adjusted' percentages of peak HR (%HRpeak) and HR reserve (%HRR) were derived from this group. External validation with 1893 CPET (cycle-ergometer or treadmill) assessed accuracy, agreement, and reliability against guideline-based %HRpeak and %HRR prescriptions using mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Bland-Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). HR predictive equations (R²: 0.77 VT1, 0.88 VT2) and adjusted %HRR (VT1: 42%, VT2: 77%) were developed. External validation demonstrated superiority over widely used guideline-directed intensity domains for %HRpeak and %HRR. The new methods showed consistent performance across both VTs with lower MAPE (VT1: 7.1%, VT2: 5.0%), 'good' ICC for VT1 (0.81, 0.82) and 'excellent' for VT2 (0.93). Guideline-based exercise intensity domains had higher MAPE (VT1: 6.8-21.3%, VT2: 5.1-16.7%), 'poor' to 'good' ICC for VT1, and 'poor' to 'excellent' for VT2, indicating inconsistencies related to specific VTs across guidelines.
CONCLUSION: Developed and validated HR predictive equations and the optimized %HRR for CMD patients for determining VT1 and VT2 outperformed the guideline-based exercise intensity domains and showed ergometer interchangeability. They offer a superior alternative for prescribing moderate intensity exercise when CPET is unavailable.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Cross-sectional study involving 2868 CMD patients from nine countries. HR predictive equations for first and second VTs (VT1, VT2) were developed using multivariate linear regression with 975 cycle-ergometer cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). 'Adjusted' percentages of peak HR (%HRpeak) and HR reserve (%HRR) were derived from this group. External validation with 1893 CPET (cycle-ergometer or treadmill) assessed accuracy, agreement, and reliability against guideline-based %HRpeak and %HRR prescriptions using mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Bland-Altman analyses, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). HR predictive equations (R²: 0.77 VT1, 0.88 VT2) and adjusted %HRR (VT1: 42%, VT2: 77%) were developed. External validation demonstrated superiority over widely used guideline-directed intensity domains for %HRpeak and %HRR. The new methods showed consistent performance across both VTs with lower MAPE (VT1: 7.1%, VT2: 5.0%), 'good' ICC for VT1 (0.81, 0.82) and 'excellent' for VT2 (0.93). Guideline-based exercise intensity domains had higher MAPE (VT1: 6.8-21.3%, VT2: 5.1-16.7%), 'poor' to 'good' ICC for VT1, and 'poor' to 'excellent' for VT2, indicating inconsistencies related to specific VTs across guidelines.
CONCLUSION: Developed and validated HR predictive equations and the optimized %HRR for CMD patients for determining VT1 and VT2 outperformed the guideline-based exercise intensity domains and showed ergometer interchangeability. They offer a superior alternative for prescribing moderate intensity exercise when CPET is unavailable.