OBJECTIVE: To determine whether repeated 6-minute walk tests (6MWTs) are required for outcome measurement and exercise prescription in a typical cardiac rehabilitation (CR) population. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Outpatient community health center. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one of 154 consecutive patients. INTERVENTION: 6MWTs (N = 2) were conducted at 3 assessment points: at CR start, postcompletion, and 6-months postcompletion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 6MWT distance (6MWD). RESULTS: Mean 6MWD for the first (6MWT1) and second (6MWT2) 6MWTs at the 3 assessment points were 507 ± 85 (522 ± 84), 532 ± 86 (560 ± 87), and 549 ± 99 (575 ± 107)m. Repeated 6MWDs strongly correlated at each assessment point, with intraclass correlation coefficients of .96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-.98), .97 (95% CI, .92-.98), and .94 (95% CI, .89-.97), respectively. Relative increases in mean 6MWD from 6MWT1 to 6MWT2 at each assessment point were 3%, 5%, and 5%, respectively (P<.001 in each case). Differences in walking speed derived from 6MWD1 and 6MWD2 did not translate into differences in exercise prescription. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between 6MWD1 and 6MWD2 was consistent regardless of previous exposure to 6MWTs. A single 6MWT was as effective as 2 repeated 6MWTs for outcome measurement and exercise prescription. We therefore recommend that when 6MWDs are used for CR outcome measurement, either a single 6MWT be used or the number of 6MWTs performed be consistent at all assessment points.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether repeated 6-minute walk tests (6MWTs) are required for outcome measurement and exercise prescription in a typical cardiac rehabilitation (CR) population. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING:Outpatient community health center. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one of 154 consecutive patients. INTERVENTION: 6MWTs (N = 2) were conducted at 3 assessment points: at CR start, postcompletion, and 6-months postcompletion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 6MWT distance (6MWD). RESULTS: Mean 6MWD for the first (6MWT1) and second (6MWT2) 6MWTs at the 3 assessment points were 507 ± 85 (522 ± 84), 532 ± 86 (560 ± 87), and 549 ± 99 (575 ± 107)m. Repeated 6MWDs strongly correlated at each assessment point, with intraclass correlation coefficients of .96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-.98), .97 (95% CI, .92-.98), and .94 (95% CI, .89-.97), respectively. Relative increases in mean 6MWD from 6MWT1 to 6MWT2 at each assessment point were 3%, 5%, and 5%, respectively (P<.001 in each case). Differences in walking speed derived from 6MWD1 and 6MWD2 did not translate into differences in exercise prescription. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between 6MWD1 and 6MWD2 was consistent regardless of previous exposure to 6MWTs. A single 6MWT was as effective as 2 repeated 6MWTs for outcome measurement and exercise prescription. We therefore recommend that when 6MWDs are used for CR outcome measurement, either a single 6MWT be used or the number of 6MWTs performed be consistent at all assessment points.
Authors: Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Tara Jo Manal; Sarah Carolyn Smith; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Hélène De Cannière; Christophe J P Smeets; Melanie Schoutteten; Carolina Varon; John F Morales Tellez; Chris Van Hoof; Sabine Van Huffel; Willemijn Groenendaal; Pieter Vandervoort Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Patricia Jepma; Harald T Jorstad; Marjolein Snaterse; Gerben Ter Riet; Hans Kragten; Sangeeta Lachman; Madelon Minneboo; S Matthijs Boekholdt; Ron J Peters; Wilma Scholte Op Reimer Journal: Heart Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.994