| Literature DB >> 35330397 |
Nicola Lamberti1, Giovanni Piva2, Federico Businaro1, Lorenzo Caruso3, Anna Crepaldi1,4, Pablo Jesùs Lòpez-Soto4,5, Fabio Manfredini1,6.
Abstract
Banister impulse-response (IR) model estimates the performance in response to the training impulses (TRIMPs). In 100 patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), we tested by an IR model the predictability of the effects of a 6-month structured home-based exercise program. The daily TRIMPs obtained from prescribed walking speed, relative intensity and time of exercise determined the fitness-fatigue components of performance. The estimated performance values, calculated from the baseline 6-min and pain-free walking distance (6MWD and PFWD, respectively) were compared with values measured at visits through regression models. Interval pain-free walking at controlled speed prescribed during circa-monthly hospital visits (5 ± 1) was safely performed at home with good adherence (92% of scheduled sessions, 144 ± 25 km walked in 50 ± 8 training hours). The mean TRIMP rose throughout the program from 276 to 601 a.u. The measured 6MWD and PFWD values increased (+33 m and +121 m, respectively) showing a good fit with those estimated by the IR model (6MWD: R2 0.81; PFWD: R2 0.68) and very good correspondence (correlation coefficients: 0.91 to 0.95), without sex differences. The decay of performance without training was estimated at 18 ± 3 weeks. In PAD, an IR model predicted the walking performance following a pain-free exercise program. IR models may contribute to design and verify personalized training programs.Entities:
Keywords: exercise therapy; gender differences; impulse-response; peripheral artery disease; rehabilitation; training
Year: 2022 PMID: 35330397 PMCID: PMC8949585 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12030397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Example of the calculation of the TRIMPs.
| 6MWT | Exercise Program | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual walking speed recorded | Single training session | Walk | 1 min | To be repeated 10 times |
| Rest | 1 min | |||
| Speed | 60 steps/min | |||
|
Intensity = training speed ÷ walking speed = 60 ÷ 100 = 0.60 Density = walking minutes ÷ total minutes = 10 ÷ 19 = 0.53 Volume = number of steps × total repetitions = 60 × 10 = 600 TRIMP = intensity × density × volume = 0.60 × 0.53 × 600 = 191 arbitrary units | ||||
Baseline characteristics of the patients under study.
| PAD Patients | |
|---|---|
| Males, | 75 |
| Age, years | 71 ± 9 |
| Risk factors; | |
| Smoking habit | 92 |
| Current smokers | 4 |
| Hypertension | 81 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 67 |
| Type 2 diabetes | 43 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 11 |
| Family history for cardiovascular disease | 35 |
| Comorbidities, | |
| Ischemic heart disease | 45 |
| Stroke | 15 |
| Osteoarticular disorders | 34 |
| Pulmonary diseases | 11 |
| Neoplastic disesase | 21 |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | 3 ± 2 |
| Age-adjusted Charlson Index | 6 ± 2 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | |
| Rutherford stage 1 | 4 |
| Rutherford stage 2 | 79 |
| Rutherford stage 3 | 17 |
| Revascularizations | 28 |
| Disease duration, years | 6 ± 5 |
| Bilateral disease | 75 |
| Ankle-brachial index more impaired limb | 0.59 ± 0.19 |
| Ankle-brachial index less impaired limb | 0.82 ± 0.17 |
| Pain-free walking distance (m) | 114 ± 61 |
| 6-min walking distance (m) | 287 ± 85 |
Figure 1Description of the impulse–response model of a sample subject included in the study considering the 6MWD. Orange diamonds represent measured performance; blue line describes the predicted performance by IR model by subtracting positive training effects (fitness: green dashed line) to negative training effects (fatigue: red dashed line). Daily training impulses (TRIMPs) are also reported as grey columns. All variables represented as functions of time (days) in the horizontal axis.
Actual and estimated values of performance over the four time periods.
| T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFWD (m), actual | 114 ± 61 | 136 ± 68 | 178 ± 82 | 207 ± 80 | 235 ± 91 |
| PFWD (m), estimated | - | 151 ± 70 | 184 ± 85 | 205 ± 84 | 220 ± 94 |
| 6MWD (m), actual | 287 ± 85 | 290 ± 83 | 316 ± 90 | 315 ± 88 | 320 ± 97 |
| 6MWD (m), estimated | - | 286 ± 82 | 306 ± 82 | 325 ± 86 | 330 ± 91 |
Model parameters including baseline performance (p(0)) and constants.
| PWFD (m) | 6MWD (m) | |
|---|---|---|
| 114 ± 61 | 287 ± 85 | |
| k1 (a.u.) | 0.03 ± 0.06 | 0.02 ± 0.03 |
| k2 (a.u.) | 0.03 ± 0.06 | 0.03 ± 0.03 |
| τ1 (days) | 45 ± 13 | 37 ± 11 |
| τ2 (days) | 25 ± 10 | 26 ± 9 |
Figure 2Passing–Bablok regressions between actual and estimated performance for both PFWD (a) and 6MWD (b).
Model parameters for the two parameters in men and women.
| PWFD (m) | 6MWD (m) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |
| k1 (a.u.) | 0.03 ± 0.05 | 0.03 ± 0.06 | 0.02 ± 0.03 | 0.02 ± 0.03 |
| k2 (a.u.) | 0.03 ± 0.06 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | 0.03 ± 0.04 |
| τ1 (days) | 45 ± 12 | 44 ± 11 | 36 ± 12 | 38 ± 13 |
| τ2 (days) | 24 ± 10 | 27 ± 9 | 25 ± 10 | 26 ± 9 |