BACKGROUND: For perioperative risk stratification, a robust, practical test could be used where cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is unavailable. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of the 6 min walk test (6MWT) distance to discriminate between low and high anaerobic threshold (AT) in patients awaiting major non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: In 110 participants, we obtained oxygen consumption at the AT from CPET and recorded the distance walked (in m) during a 6MWT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to derive two different cut-points for 6MWT distance in predicting an AT of <11 ml O(2) kg(-1) min(-1); one using the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity (conventional method) and the other adopting a 2:1 weighting in favour of sensitivity. In addition, using a novel linear regression-based technique, we obtained lower and upper cut-points for 6MWT distance that are predictive of an AT that is likely to be (P≥0.75) <11 or >11 ml O(2) kg(-1) min(-1). RESULTS: The ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.91). The optimum cut-points were <440 m (conventional method) and <502 m (sensitivity-weighted approach). The regression-based lower and upper 6MWT distance cut-points were <427 and >563 m, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients walking >563 m in the 6MWT do not routinely require CPET; those walking <427 m should be referred for further evaluation. In situations of 'clinical uncertainty' (≥427 but ≤563 m), the number of clinical risk factors and magnitude of surgery should be incorporated into the decision-making process. The 6MWT is a useful clinical tool to screen and risk stratify patients in departments where CPET is unavailable.
BACKGROUND: For perioperative risk stratification, a robust, practical test could be used where cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is unavailable. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of the 6 min walk test (6MWT) distance to discriminate between low and high anaerobic threshold (AT) in patients awaiting major non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: In 110 participants, we obtained oxygen consumption at the AT from CPET and recorded the distance walked (in m) during a 6MWT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to derive two different cut-points for 6MWT distance in predicting an AT of <11 ml O(2) kg(-1) min(-1); one using the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity (conventional method) and the other adopting a 2:1 weighting in favour of sensitivity. In addition, using a novel linear regression-based technique, we obtained lower and upper cut-points for 6MWT distance that are predictive of an AT that is likely to be (P≥0.75) <11 or >11 ml O(2) kg(-1) min(-1). RESULTS: The ROC curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.91). The optimum cut-points were <440 m (conventional method) and <502 m (sensitivity-weighted approach). The regression-based lower and upper 6MWT distance cut-points were <427 and >563 m, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Patients walking >563 m in the 6MWT do not routinely require CPET; those walking <427 m should be referred for further evaluation. In situations of 'clinical uncertainty' (≥427 but ≤563 m), the number of clinical risk factors and magnitude of surgery should be incorporated into the decision-making process. The 6MWT is a useful clinical tool to screen and risk stratify patients in departments where CPET is unavailable.
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Julio F Fiore; Chelsia Gillis; Rashami Awasthi; Benjamin Mappin-Kasirer; Petru Niculiseanu; Gerald M Fried; Francesco Carli; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anthony W Castleberry; Brian R Englum; Laurie D Snyder; Mathias Worni; Asishana A Osho; Brian C Gulack; Scott M Palmer; R Duane Davis; Matthew G Hartwig Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Daniel S Rubin; Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Anthony Hung; R Parker Ward; Peter Nagele; Ross Arena; Donald Hedeker Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Duminda N Wijeysundera; Rupert M Pearse; Mark A Shulman; Tom E F Abbott; Elizabeth Torres; Bernard L Croal; John T Granton; Kevin E Thorpe; Michael P W Grocott; Catherine Farrington; Paul S Myles; Brian H Cuthbertson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 2.692