Christina Story1, Ashley Leak Bryant2, Brett Phillips3, Charlotte Bailey4, Edgar W Shields1, Claudio Battaglini5. 1. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. School of Nursing, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA claudio@email.unc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), the gold standard of cardiopulmonary evaluation, is used to determine VO2 levels at different aerobic exercise training intensities; however, it may not be feasible to conduct CPET in all clinical settings. AIMS: To compare the heart rate reserve (HRR) and percent of 220-age methods for prescribing cycle ergometry exercise intensity using heart rate (HR) against the HRs obtained during a CPET in adults undergoing treatment for acute leukemia (AL). METHODS: In this exploratory study, part of a larger randomized controlled trial, 14 adults with AL completed CPET on a cycle ergometer with indirect calorimetry within 96 hr of admission to a cancer hospital to determine VO2peak and HR corresponding to low (40% VO2peak), moderate (60% VO2peak), and high (75% VO2peak) exercise intensities. Analyses of variance were used to compare estimated HR for each intensity level using the HRR and percent of 220-age methods with HR determined via VO2peak. RESULTS:HR corresponding to low-intensity exercise differed significantly across all three methods (p ≤ .05). No significant differences were observed between HR estimated via the percent of 220-age method and determined via VO2peak at moderate (100 ± 8 and 113 ± 24 bpm, p = .122) or high intensities (125 ± 10 and 123 ± 25 bpm, p = .994). CONCLUSION: In adults with AL, HR-based methods for defining aerobic exercise intensities should be used with caution. At low intensity, neither should be used, while at moderate and high intensities, the percent of 220-age equation might serve as an adequate substitute for CPET.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), the gold standard of cardiopulmonary evaluation, is used to determine VO2 levels at different aerobic exercise training intensities; however, it may not be feasible to conduct CPET in all clinical settings. AIMS: To compare the heart rate reserve (HRR) and percent of 220-age methods for prescribing cycle ergometry exercise intensity using heart rate (HR) against the HRs obtained during a CPET in adults undergoing treatment for acute leukemia (AL). METHODS: In this exploratory study, part of a larger randomized controlled trial, 14 adults with AL completed CPET on a cycle ergometer with indirect calorimetry within 96 hr of admission to a cancer hospital to determine VO2peak and HR corresponding to low (40% VO2peak), moderate (60% VO2peak), and high (75% VO2peak) exercise intensities. Analyses of variance were used to compare estimated HR for each intensity level using the HRR and percent of 220-age methods with HR determined via VO2peak. RESULTS: HR corresponding to low-intensity exercise differed significantly across all three methods (p ≤ .05). No significant differences were observed between HR estimated via the percent of 220-age method and determined via VO2peak at moderate (100 ± 8 and 113 ± 24 bpm, p = .122) or high intensities (125 ± 10 and 123 ± 25 bpm, p = .994). CONCLUSION: In adults with AL, HR-based methods for defining aerobic exercise intensities should be used with caution. At low intensity, neither should be used, while at moderate and high intensities, the percent of 220-age equation might serve as an adequate substitute for CPET.
Authors: Claudio L Battaglini; A C Hackney; Rey Garcia; Diane Groff; Elizabeth Evans; Thomas Shea Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Anja Großek; Thomas Elter; Max Oberste; Florian Wolf; Niklas Joisten; Philipp Hartig; David Walzik; Friederike Rosenberger; David Kiesl; Patrick Wahl; Wilhelm Bloch; Philipp Zimmer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Linda Bühl; Thomas Abel; Florian Wolf; Max Oberste; Wilhelm Bloch; Michael Hallek; Thomas Elter; Philipp Zimmer Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.279