The 200-m fast-walk test compared with the 6-min walk test and the maximal cardiopulmonary test: a pilot study

Details

Ressource 1Request a copy Sous embargo indéterminé.
State: Public
Version: author
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_9023F923F81C
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Title
The 200-m fast-walk test compared with the 6-min walk test and the maximal cardiopulmonary test: a pilot study
Journal
Am J Phys Med Rehabil
Author(s)
Gremeaux V., Deley G., Duclay J., Antoine D., Hannequin A., Casillas J. M.
ISSN
1537-7385 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0894-9115
Publication state
Published
Issued date
07/2009
Volume
88
Number
7
Pages
571-8
Language
english
Notes
Gremeaux, Vincent
Deley, G
Duclay, J
Antoine, D
Hannequin, A
Casillas, J M
eng
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Jul;88(7):571-8. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181aa416b.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The 200-m fast-walk test has been proposed as a high- intensity performance test in healthy, elderly subjects. Adaptation of low-risk coronary artery disease patients during this test were compared with those in a 6-min walk test and a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. DESIGN: Thirty patients with stable coronary artery disease (51.9 +/- 8.7 yrs), referred to the cardiac rehabilitation department, performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test, then a 200-m fast-walk test and a 6-min walk test in a random order, before and after the training period (6 wks, 3 days per week). Heart rate was monitored during each test. Peak workload of cardiopulmonary exercise test, distance walked on the 6-min walk test, and time to perform the 200-m fast-walk test were measured. A subsample of ten patients performed the exercise test with gas exchange measurements, with ventilatory threshold determination. RESULTS: All subjects completed walk tests without complaint or incidents. Compared with the cardiopulmonary exercise test, the cardiac relative intensity was higher during the 200-m fast-walk test than during the 6-min walk test, both before (89.6% vs. 78.1% of cardiopulmonary exercise test maximal heart rate; P < 0.05) and after (83.8% vs. 74.3%; P < 0.05) training. Among the subsample of ten patients, the 200-m fast-walk test heart rate was significantly higher than the ventilatory threshold heart rate, which did not differ from the 6-min walk test heart rate. The 200-m fast-walk test time significantly decreased after training (-9.1%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease at low risk, the 200-m fast-walk test explores higher levels of cardiorespiratory capacity than the 6-min walk test. Thus, this could be a useful field test in complement to the cardiopulmonary exercise test to assess functional capacity improvement and update training targets regularly during the course of high-intensity rehabilitation programs in this population.
Keywords
Adaptation, Physiological, Coronary Artery Disease/physiopathology/*rehabilitation, Coronary Care Units, *Exercise Test, *Exercise Tolerance, Female, Health Status Indicators, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Reproducibility of Results, Walking/*physiology
Pubmed
Create date
26/11/2019 11:35
Last modification date
06/05/2020 5:26
Usage data