• Nuria M Novoa, María Rodríguez, M Teresa Gómez, Marcelo F Jiménez, and Gonzalo Varela.
• Servicio de Cirugía Torácica, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, España. Electronic address: nuria.novoa@usal.es.
• Arch. Bronconeumol. 2015 Jun 1; 51 (6): 268-72.

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to investigate whether a patient's maximum capacity is comparable in 2 different stair-climbing tests, allowing the simplest to be used in clinical practice.MethodProspective, observational study of repeated measures on 33 consecutive patients scheduled for lung resection. Stair-climbing tests were: the standard test (climb to 27 m) and the alternative fixed-altitude test (climb to 12 m). In both cases, heart rate and oxygen saturation were monitored before and after the test. The power output of stair-climbing for each test (Watt1 for the standard and Watt2 for the fixed-altitude test) was calculated using the following equation: Power (watt)=weight (kg)*9.8*height (m)/time (sec). Concordance between tests was evaluated using a regression model and the residuals were plotted against Watt1. Finally, power output values were analyzed using a Bland-Altman plot.ResultsTwenty-one male and 12 female patients (mean age 63.2±11.2) completed both tests. Only 12 patients finished the standard test, while all finished the fixed-altitude test. Mean power output values were Watt1: 184.1±65 and Watt2: 214.5±75.1. The coefficient of determination (R(2)) in the linear regression was 0.67. No fixed bias was detected after plotting the residuals. The Bland-Altman plot showed that 32 out of 33 values were within 2 standard deviations of the differences between methods.ConclusionsThe results of this study show a reasonable level of concordance between both stair-climbing tests. The standard test can be replaced by the fixed-altitude test up to 12 m.Copyright © 2014 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…