Respiratory care · 2017
Incremental Shuttle Walk Test to Assess and Prescribe Exercise for Subjects With Bronchiectasis: Hallway Versus Treadmill.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Oliveira Cristiane S, José Anderson, Santos Crislaine O, de Oliveira Cristiane H Y, Carvalho Thiago C O, de Castro Rejane A S, Selman Jessyca P R, de Camargo Anderson A, Dal Corso Simone
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The incremental shuttle walk test was initially developed to be carried out in a hallway (ISWT-H) but has been modified to be performed on a treadmill (ISWT-T). However, it is still unknown whether performance on ISWT-H and ISWT-T are similar in patients with bronchiectasis. In this study, we compared the performance, physiological responses, and perception of effort between the ISWT-T with a handrail and ISWT-H for subjects with bronchiectasis. We also sought to estimate and compare the prescription for training intensity with both tests.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which 24 subjects with bronchiectasis were evaluated on 2 different days (24 h apart). Distance walked (m) was compared between the ISWT-H and ISWT-T. A training session was held on a treadmill at 75% of the speed obtained from both tests. The walking distance, oxygen uptake (V̇O2 ), carbon dioxide production (V̇CO2 ), heart rate, and ventilation (V̇E) were measured.
RESULTS: There was a difference in the walking distance between the ISWT-T and ISWT-H, but physiological responses for V̇O2 , V̇CO2 , heart rate, and V̇E were similar. However, the speed estimated for training was different, as were the V̇O2 , V̇CO2 , and heart rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The ISWT-T with handrail and the ISWT-H are not interchangeable in subjects with bronchiectasis. A slower speed of training intensity may occur when the test is performed in a hallway, as originally described, and this may underestimate responses to aerobic training.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which 24 subjects with bronchiectasis were evaluated on 2 different days (24 h apart). Distance walked (m) was compared between the ISWT-H and ISWT-T. A training session was held on a treadmill at 75% of the speed obtained from both tests. The walking distance, oxygen uptake (V̇O2 ), carbon dioxide production (V̇CO2 ), heart rate, and ventilation (V̇E) were measured.
RESULTS: There was a difference in the walking distance between the ISWT-T and ISWT-H, but physiological responses for V̇O2 , V̇CO2 , heart rate, and V̇E were similar. However, the speed estimated for training was different, as were the V̇O2 , V̇CO2 , and heart rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The ISWT-T with handrail and the ISWT-H are not interchangeable in subjects with bronchiectasis. A slower speed of training intensity may occur when the test is performed in a hallway, as originally described, and this may underestimate responses to aerobic training.