PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Respiration· 2013Q2

Fit Yourself and Take Your Lungs to Heart

Paolo Palange, Matteo Bonini

Short summary

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) indices like peak O(2) uptake and ventilation-CO(2) output slope are powerful tools for prognostic evaluation in lung and heart disease, and for assessing therapeutic interventions.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • CPET indices (peak O(2) uptake, V'O(2) at lactate threshold, ventilation-CO(2) output slope, O(2) desaturation) are powerful for prognostic evaluation in lung and heart disease.
  • Assessing interventions can benefit from measuring the tolerable duration of high-intensity constant-load exercise.
  • Field-testing paradigms like timed and shuttle walking tests are also valuable.
  • CPET helps clinicians answer critical questions about when to evaluate exercise intolerance, which tests to use, and which variables to select for prognosis or intervention assessment.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Evidence-based recommendations on the clinical use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in lung and heart disease are presented, with reference to the assessment of exercise intolerance, prognostic assessment and the evaluation of therapeutic interventions (e.g. drugs, supplemental oxygen, exercise training). A commonly used grading system for recommendations in evidence-based guidelines was applied, with the grade of recommendation ranging from A, the highest, to D, the lowest. For symptom-limited incremental exercise, CPET indices, such as peak O(2) uptake (V'O(2)), V'O(2) at lactate threshold, the slope of the ventilation-CO(2) output relationship and the presence of arterial O(2) desaturation, have all been shown to have power in prognostic evaluation. In addition, for assessment of interventions, the tolerable duration of symptom-limited high-intensity constant-load exercise often provides greater sensitivity to discriminate change than the classical incremental test. Field-testing paradigms (e.g. timed and shuttle walking tests) also prove valuable. In turn, these considerations allow the resolution of practical questions that often confront the clinician, such as: 1) "When should an evaluation of exercise intolerance be sought?"; 2) "Which particular form of test should be asked for?"; and 3) "What cluster of variables should be selected when evaluating prognosis for a particular disease or the effect of a particular intervention?"

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Respiration, 2013 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Pulmonary and Respiratory MedicineMedicine