OBJECTIVE: The 200-m fast-walk test has been proposed as a high- intensity performance test in healthy, elderly subjects. Adaptation of low-risk coronary artery disease patients during this test were compared with those in a 6-min walk test and a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. DESIGN:Thirty patients with stable coronary artery disease (51.9 +/- 8.7 yrs), referred to the cardiac rehabilitation department, performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test, then a 200-m fast-walk test and a 6-min walk test in a random order, before and after the training period (6 wks, 3 days per week). Heart rate was monitored during each test. Peak workload of cardiopulmonary exercise test, distance walked on the 6-min walk test, and time to perform the 200-m fast-walk test were measured. A subsample of ten patients performed the exercise test with gas exchange measurements, with ventilatory threshold determination. RESULTS: All subjects completed walk tests without complaint or incidents. Compared with the cardiopulmonary exercise test, the cardiac relative intensity was higher during the 200-m fast-walk test than during the 6-min walk test, both before (89.6% vs. 78.1% of cardiopulmonary exercise test maximal heart rate; P < 0.05) and after (83.8% vs. 74.3%; P < 0.05) training. Among the subsample of ten patients, the 200-m fast-walk test heart rate was significantly higher than the ventilatory threshold heart rate, which did not differ from the 6-min walk test heart rate. The 200-m fast-walk test time significantly decreased after training (-9.1%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease at low risk, the 200-m fast-walk test explores higher levels of cardiorespiratory capacity than the 6-min walk test. Thus, this could be a useful field test in complement to the cardiopulmonary exercise test to assess functional capacity improvement and update training targets regularly during the course of high-intensity rehabilitation programs in this population.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The 200-m fast-walk test has been proposed as a high- intensity performance test in healthy, elderly subjects. Adaptation of low-risk coronary artery diseasepatients during this test were compared with those in a 6-min walk test and a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. DESIGN: Thirty patients with stable coronary artery disease (51.9 +/- 8.7 yrs), referred to the cardiac rehabilitation department, performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test, then a 200-m fast-walk test and a 6-min walk test in a random order, before and after the training period (6 wks, 3 days per week). Heart rate was monitored during each test. Peak workload of cardiopulmonary exercise test, distance walked on the 6-min walk test, and time to perform the 200-m fast-walk test were measured. A subsample of ten patients performed the exercise test with gas exchange measurements, with ventilatory threshold determination. RESULTS: All subjects completed walk tests without complaint or incidents. Compared with the cardiopulmonary exercise test, the cardiac relative intensity was higher during the 200-m fast-walk test than during the 6-min walk test, both before (89.6% vs. 78.1% of cardiopulmonary exercise test maximal heart rate; P < 0.05) and after (83.8% vs. 74.3%; P < 0.05) training. Among the subsample of ten patients, the 200-m fast-walk test heart rate was significantly higher than the ventilatory threshold heart rate, which did not differ from the 6-min walk test heart rate. The 200-m fast-walk test time significantly decreased after training (-9.1%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease at low risk, the 200-m fast-walk test explores higher levels of cardiorespiratory capacity than the 6-min walk test. Thus, this could be a useful field test in complement to the cardiopulmonary exercise test to assess functional capacity improvement and update training targets regularly during the course of high-intensity rehabilitation programs in this population.
Authors: Ladislav Batalik; Vladimir Konecny; Filip Dosbaba; Daniela Vlazna; Kristian Brat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 4.614