BACKGROUND: Although exercise testing is an important objective method used to assess cardiopulmonary function, subjective assessment often is used as a proxy in the clinical setting. This study aimed to determine whether responses to a subjective functional capacity questionnaire administered to parents and patients in a pediatric exercise laboratory correlate with objective assessment of functional capacity, measured by peak oxygen consumption during maximal voluntary exercise testing. METHODS: Subjective questionnaire responses and exercise test results collected over 10 years were retrospectively analyzed. Symptoms and physical capabilities were assessed using a 6-point Likert scale regarding the ability to attend school/work, walk, climb stairs, and run, as well as the frequency of fatigue, palpitations, and chest pain. Values of 0 to 3 were considered abnormal, whereas values of 4-5 were regarded as normal. Exercise testing was performed on a stationary cycle ergometer with a continuous ramping protocol. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were continuously monitored. Blood pressures and electrocardiograms (ECGs) were obtained at 2-min intervals. Metabolic gas analysis was performed using a breath-by-breath method. The results of the exercise testing were normalized for body size and expressed as a percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (%pVO(2)). RESULTS: Very weak but statistically significant correlations (τ < 0.25; P < 0.05) between the scores of the school/work, walking, stair climbing, running, and fatigue items and %pVO(2) were found using Kendall's rank correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The subjective Likert scales used to assess basic physical capacity and cardiac-associated symptoms have limited ability to predict actual functional capacity as measured by %pVO(2) achieved. The very weak rank-order correlation between %pVO(2) achieved and the subjective reporting of the ability to attend school/work, walk, climb stairs, and run has low clinical significance and will not be useful in predicting functional capacity within the clinic setting.
BACKGROUND: Although exercise testing is an important objective method used to assess cardiopulmonary function, subjective assessment often is used as a proxy in the clinical setting. This study aimed to determine whether responses to a subjective functional capacity questionnaire administered to parents and patients in a pediatric exercise laboratory correlate with objective assessment of functional capacity, measured by peak oxygen consumption during maximal voluntary exercise testing. METHODS: Subjective questionnaire responses and exercise test results collected over 10 years were retrospectively analyzed. Symptoms and physical capabilities were assessed using a 6-point Likert scale regarding the ability to attend school/work, walk, climb stairs, and run, as well as the frequency of fatigue, palpitations, and chest pain. Values of 0 to 3 were considered abnormal, whereas values of 4-5 were regarded as normal. Exercise testing was performed on a stationary cycle ergometer with a continuous ramping protocol. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were continuously monitored. Blood pressures and electrocardiograms (ECGs) were obtained at 2-min intervals. Metabolic gas analysis was performed using a breath-by-breath method. The results of the exercise testing were normalized for body size and expressed as a percentage of predicted peak oxygen consumption (%pVO(2)). RESULTS: Very weak but statistically significant correlations (τ < 0.25; P < 0.05) between the scores of the school/work, walking, stair climbing, running, and fatigue items and %pVO(2) were found using Kendall's rank correlations. CONCLUSIONS: The subjective Likert scales used to assess basic physical capacity and cardiac-associated symptoms have limited ability to predict actual functional capacity as measured by %pVO(2) achieved. The very weak rank-order correlation between %pVO(2) achieved and the subjective reporting of the ability to attend school/work, walk, climb stairs, and run has low clinical significance and will not be useful in predicting functional capacity within the clinic setting.
Authors: Julie A Davis; Michael G McBride; Maryanne R K Chrisant; Sujata M Patil; Brian D Hanna; Stephen M Paridon Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: L M LeMura; S P von Duvillard; S L Cohen; C J Root; S A Chelland; J Andreacci; J Hoover; J Weatherford Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Michael J Danduran; Michael G Earing; David C Sheridan; Lauren A Ewalt; Peter C Frommelt Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 1.655