AIMS: In the rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease patients a correct determination of the endurance-type exercise intensity is important to generate health benefits and preserve medical safety. It remains to be assessed whether the guideline-based exercise intensity domains are internally consistent and agree with physiological responses to exercise in cardiovascular disease patients. METHODS: A total of 272 cardiovascular disease patients without pacemaker executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test on bike (peak respiratory gas exchange ratio >1.09), to assess peak heart rate (HRpeak), oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and cycling power output (Wpeak). The first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2, respectively) was determined and extrapolated to %VO2peak, %HRpeak, %heart rate reserve (%HRR) and %Wpeak for comparison with guideline-based exercise intensity domains. RESULTS: VT1 was noted at 62 ± 10% VO2peak, 75 ± 10% HRpeak, 42 ± 14% HRR and 47 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %VO2peak and %HRpeak) or low intensity exercise domain (for %Wpeak and %HRR). VT2 was noted at 84 ± 9% VO2peak, 88 ± 8% HRpeak, 74 ± 15% HRR and 76 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %HRR and %Wpeak) or very hard exercise domain (for %HRpeak and %VO2peak). At best (when using %Wpeak) in only 63% and 72% of all patients VT1 and VT2, respectively, corresponded to the same guideline-based exercise intensity domain, but this dropped to about 48% and 52% at worst (when using %HRR and %HRpeak, respectively). In particular, the patient's VO2peak related to differently elicited guideline-based exercise intensity domains (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The guideline-based exercise intensity domains for cardiovascular disease patients seem inconsistent, thus reiterating the need for adjustment.
AIMS: In the rehabilitation of cardiovascular diseasepatients a correct determination of the endurance-type exercise intensity is important to generate health benefits and preserve medical safety. It remains to be assessed whether the guideline-based exercise intensity domains are internally consistent and agree with physiological responses to exercise in cardiovascular diseasepatients. METHODS: A total of 272 cardiovascular diseasepatients without pacemaker executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test on bike (peak respiratory gas exchange ratio >1.09), to assess peak heart rate (HRpeak), oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and cycling power output (Wpeak). The first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2, respectively) was determined and extrapolated to %VO2peak, %HRpeak, %heart rate reserve (%HRR) and %Wpeak for comparison with guideline-based exercise intensity domains. RESULTS: VT1 was noted at 62 ± 10% VO2peak, 75 ± 10% HRpeak, 42 ± 14% HRR and 47 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %VO2peak and %HRpeak) or low intensity exercise domain (for %Wpeak and %HRR). VT2 was noted at 84 ± 9% VO2peak, 88 ± 8% HRpeak, 74 ± 15% HRR and 76 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %HRR and %Wpeak) or very hard exercise domain (for %HRpeak and %VO2peak). At best (when using %Wpeak) in only 63% and 72% of all patients VT1 and VT2, respectively, corresponded to the same guideline-based exercise intensity domain, but this dropped to about 48% and 52% at worst (when using %HRR and %HRpeak, respectively). In particular, the patient's VO2peak related to differently elicited guideline-based exercise intensity domains (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The guideline-based exercise intensity domains for cardiovascular diseasepatients seem inconsistent, thus reiterating the need for adjustment.
Authors: Danilo Iannetta; Daniel A Keir; Federico Y Fontana; Erin Calaine Inglis; Anmol T Mattu; Donald H Paterson; Silvia Pogliaghi; Juan M Murias Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Michael J Kirton; Mitchel T Burnley; Joyce S Ramos; Ryan Weatherwax; Lance C Dalleck Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.017
Authors: Daniel A Keir; Danilo Iannetta; Felipe Mattioni Maturana; John M Kowalchuk; Juan M Murias Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Thimo Marcin; Prisca Eser; Eva Prescott; Leonie F Prins; Evelien Kolkman; Wendy Bruins; Astrid E van der Velde; Carlos Peña Gil; Marie-Christine Iliou; Diego Ardissino; Uwe Zeymer; Esther P Meindersma; Arnoud W J Van't Hof; Ed P de Kluiver; Matthias Wilhelm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 3.240