QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability is often done by cardiopulmonary exercise testing under laboratory conditions. Mobile CPET devices allow measurements under specific real-life conditions, i.e.: at the patient's workplace. We investigated the feasibility and validity of mobile CPET in healthy controls. METHOD: We compared oxygen uptake measured by mobile CPET (MCPET) with that by standard CPET (LCPET), and we compared oxygen uptake with markers of self-reported physical exhaustion. Twenty-two healthy subjects (15 male, 21-49 years) underwent LCPET and 6 outdoors 12-min running tests (MCPETs) at different intensities. Physical exhaustion and the time they could continue exercising (T(EX)) was reported for each level. Standard descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: Of 132 MCPETs, performed in 22 subjects, 128 (97%) were of suitable quality. The facemask was well tolerated and nobody felt uncomfortable at any time. On average VO2 [peak] was 21% (SD 9%) higher with MCPET compared to LCPET (median 3.60, range [2.22, 5.14] versus median 2.63, range [1.67, 4.16] L*min(-1)), but showed a strong correlation (r2 = 0.90). MCPET-VO2 at steady state correlated with subjectively rated physical exhaustion, and with TEX. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-laboratory MCPET was feasible, correlated with parameters of standard CPET, and correlated with markers of physical exhaustion. After validation in patients, MCPET could be used for a rational evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability in selected patients.
QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability is often done by cardiopulmonary exercise testing under laboratory conditions. Mobile CPET devices allow measurements under specific real-life conditions, i.e.: at the patient's workplace. We investigated the feasibility and validity of mobile CPET in healthy controls. METHOD: We compared oxygen uptake measured by mobile CPET (MCPET) with that by standard CPET (LCPET), and we compared oxygen uptake with markers of self-reported physical exhaustion. Twenty-two healthy subjects (15 male, 21-49 years) underwent LCPET and 6 outdoors 12-min running tests (MCPETs) at different intensities. Physical exhaustion and the time they could continue exercising (T(EX)) was reported for each level. Standard descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: Of 132 MCPETs, performed in 22 subjects, 128 (97%) were of suitable quality. The facemask was well tolerated and nobody felt uncomfortable at any time. On average VO2 [peak] was 21% (SD 9%) higher with MCPET compared to LCPET (median 3.60, range [2.22, 5.14] versus median 2.63, range [1.67, 4.16] L*min(-1)), but showed a strong correlation (r2 = 0.90). MCPET-VO2 at steady state correlated with subjectively rated physical exhaustion, and with TEX. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-laboratory MCPET was feasible, correlated with parameters of standard CPET, and correlated with markers of physical exhaustion. After validation in patients, MCPET could be used for a rational evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability in selected patients.