Comparing methods for prescribing exercise for individuals with chronic heart failure


Autoria(s): Patterson, Jeremy A.; Selig, Steve E.; Toia, Deidre; Geerling, Ralph H.; Bamroongsuk, Voramont; Hare, David L.
Data(s)

01/08/2005

Resumo

This study examined the accuracy of current recommended guidelines for prescribing exercise intensity using the methods of percentage of heart rate reserve (%HRR), percentage of VO<sub>2</sub> peak (%VO<sub>2</sub>peak) and percentage of VO<sub>2</sub> reserve (%VO<sub>2</sub>R) in a clinical population of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. The precision of prescription of exercise intensity for 45 patients with stable CHF (39:6 M:F, 65±9 yrs (mean±SD)) was investigated. VO<sub>2</sub>peak testing is relatively common among patients with cardiac disease, but the assessment of VO<sub>2</sub>rest is not common practice and the accepted standard value of 3.5 mL/kg/min is assumed in the application of %VO2R (%VO<sub>2</sub>R<sub>3.5</sub>). In this study, VO<sub>2</sub>rest was recorded for 3 min prior to the start of a symptom-limited exercise test on a cycle ergometer. Target exercise intensities were calculated using the VO<sub>2</sub> corresponding to 50 or 80 %HRR, VO<sub>2</sub>peak and VO<sub>2</sub>R. The VO<sub>2</sub> values were then converted into prescribed speeds on a treadmill in km/hr at 1 %grade using ACSM’s metabolic equation for walking. Target intensities and prescribed treadmill speeds were also calculated with the %VO<sub>2</sub>R method using the mean VO<sub>2</sub>rest value of participants (3.9 mL/kg/min) (%VO<sub>2</sub>R<sub>3.9</sub>). This was then compared to the exercise intensities and prescribed treadmill speeds using patient’s measured VO<sub>2</sub>rest. Error in prescription correlates the difference between %VO<sub>2</sub>R<sub>3.5</sub> and %VO<sub>2</sub>R<sub>3.9</sub> compared to %VO<sub>2</sub>R with measured VO<sub>2</sub>rest. Prescription of exercise intensity through the %HRR method is imprecise for patients on medications that blunt the HR response to exercise. %VO<sub>2</sub>R method offers a significant improvement in exercise prescription compared to %VO<sub>2</sub>peak. However, a disparity of 10 % still exists in the %VO<sub>2</sub>R method using the standard 3.5 mL/kg/min for VO<sub>2</sub>rest in the %VO<sub>2</sub>R equation. The mean measured VO<sub>2</sub>rest in the 45 CHF patients was 11 % higher (3.9±0.8 mL/kg/min) than the standard value provided by ACSM. Applying the mean measured VO<sub>2</sub>rest value of 3.9 mL/kg/min rather than the standard assumed value of 3.5 mL/kg/min proved to be closer to the prescribed intensity determined by the actual measured resting VO<sub>2</sub>. These results suggest that the %HRR method should not be used to prescribe exercise intensity for CHF patients. Instead, VO<sub>2</sub> should be used to prescribe exercise intensity and be expressed as %VO<sub>2</sub>R with measured variables (VO<sub>2</sub>rest and VO<sub>2</sub>peak).<br />

Identificador

http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30033431

Idioma(s)

eng

Publicador

American Society of Exercise Physiologists

Relação

http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30033431/selig-comparingmethods-2005.pdf

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/PattersonV3.pdf

Direitos

2005, American Society of Exercise Physiologists

Palavras-Chave #metabolic equations #chronic heart failure #%VO2R #resting VO2
Tipo

Journal Article