Hayley Lewthwaite1,2, Dennis Jensen3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, 475 Pine Avenue West, Montréal, QC, H2W 1S4, Canada. Hayley.Lewthwaite@mcgill.ca. 2. Innovation, Implementation And Clinical Translation in Health, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. Hayley.Lewthwaite@mcgill.ca. 3. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, 475 Pine Avenue West, Montréal, QC, H2W 1S4, Canada. 4. Division of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Canada. 5. Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Translational Research in Respiratory Diseases Program, Montréal, Canada. 6. Research Centre for Physical Activity and Health, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored if healthy adults could discriminate between different breathlessness dimensions when rated immediately one after another (successively) during symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) using multiple single-item rating scales. METHODS: Fifteen apparently healthy adults (60% male) aged 22 ± 2 years performed six incremental cycle CPETs separated by ≥ 48 h. During each CPET (at rest, every 2-min and at end exercise), participants rated different breathlessness sensations using the 0-10 modified Borg scale using one of six assessment protocols, randomized for order: (1) 'BREATHLESSALL' = breathlessness sensory intensity (SI), breathlessness unpleasantness (UN), work/effort of breathing (SQW/E), and unsatisfied inspiration (SQUI) assessed; (2) SI and UN assessed; and (3-6) SI, UN, SQW/E, and SQUI each assessed alone. Physiological responses to CPET were also evaluated. RESULTS: Physiological and breathlessness responses to CPET were comparable across the six protocols, with the exception of SI rated lower at the highest submaximal power output (220 ± 56 watts) during the BREATHLESSALL protocol (0-10 Borg units 4.2 ± 1.7) compared to SI + UN (5.2 ± 2.1, p = 0.03) and SI alone (5.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.04) protocols. Ratings of SI and SQW/E were not significantly different when assessed in the same protocol, and were significantly higher than UN and SQUI, which were comparable. CONCLUSION: In healthy younger adults, use of two separate single-item rating scales to assess breathlessness during CPET is feasible and enables the distinct sensory intensity and affective dimensions of exertional breathlessness to be assessed.
PURPOSE: This study explored if healthy adults could discriminate between different breathlessness dimensions when rated immediately one after another (successively) during symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) using multiple single-item rating scales. METHODS: Fifteen apparently healthy adults (60% male) aged 22 ± 2 years performed six incremental cycle CPETs separated by ≥ 48 h. During each CPET (at rest, every 2-min and at end exercise), participants rated different breathlessness sensations using the 0-10 modified Borg scale using one of six assessment protocols, randomized for order: (1) 'BREATHLESSALL' = breathlessness sensory intensity (SI), breathlessness unpleasantness (UN), work/effort of breathing (SQW/E), and unsatisfied inspiration (SQUI) assessed; (2) SI and UN assessed; and (3-6) SI, UN, SQW/E, and SQUI each assessed alone. Physiological responses to CPET were also evaluated. RESULTS: Physiological and breathlessness responses to CPET were comparable across the six protocols, with the exception of SI rated lower at the highest submaximal power output (220 ± 56 watts) during the BREATHLESSALL protocol (0-10 Borg units 4.2 ± 1.7) compared to SI + UN (5.2 ± 2.1, p = 0.03) and SI alone (5.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.04) protocols. Ratings of SI and SQW/E were not significantly different when assessed in the same protocol, and were significantly higher than UN and SQUI, which were comparable. CONCLUSION: In healthy younger adults, use of two separate single-item rating scales to assess breathlessness during CPET is feasible and enables the distinct sensory intensity and affective dimensions of exertional breathlessness to be assessed.
Authors: Roberto C Chin; Jordan A Guenette; Sicheng Cheng; Natya Raghavan; Naparat Amornputtisathaporn; Arturo Cortés-Télles; Katherine A Webb; Denis E O'Donnell Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Julia M Cory; Michele R Schaeffer; Sabrina S Wilkie; Andrew H Ramsook; Joseph H Puyat; Brandon Arbour; Robbi Basran; Michael Lam; Christian Les; Benjamin MacDonald; Dennis Jensen; Jordan A Guenette Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2015-09-03
Authors: Azmy Faisal; Bader J Alghamdi; Casey E Ciavaglia; Amany F Elbehairy; Katherine A Webb; Josuel Ora; J Alberto Neder; Denis E O'Donnell Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Brian L Graham; Irene Steenbruggen; Martin R Miller; Igor Z Barjaktarevic; Brendan G Cooper; Graham L Hall; Teal S Hallstrand; David A Kaminsky; Kevin McCarthy; Meredith C McCormack; Cristine E Oropez; Margaret Rosenfeld; Sanja Stanojevic; Maureen P Swanney; Bruce R Thompson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405