• Can J Anaesth · Jun 2017

    Comparative Study

    A comparison of methods for determining the ventilatory threshold: implications for surgical risk stratification.

    • Baruch Vainshelboim, Shravan Rao, Khin Chan, Ricardo M Lima, Euan A Ashley, and Jonathan Myers.
    • Division of Cardiology, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, 111C, 3801 Miranda Ave, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA. baruch.v1981@gmail.com.
    • Can J Anaesth. 2017 Jun 1; 64 (6): 634-642.

    PurposeThe ventilatory threshold (VT) is an objective physiological marker of the capacity of aerobic endurance that has good prognostic applications in preoperative settings. Nevertheless, determining the VT can be challenging due to physiological and methodological issues, especially in evaluating surgical risk. The purpose of the current study was to compare different methods of determining VT and to highlight the implications for assessing perioperative risk.MethodsOur study entailed analysis of 445 treadmill cardiopulmonary exercise tests from 140 presurgical candidates with an aortic abdominal aneurysm (≥3.0 to ≤5.0 cm) and a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 72 (8) yr. We used three methods to determine the VT in 328 comparable tests, namely, self-detected metabolic system (MS), experts' visual (V) readings, and software using a log-log transformation (LLT) of ventilation vs oxygen uptake. Differences and agreement between the three methods were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), coefficient of variation (CV), typical error limits of agreement (LoA), and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC).ResultsOverall, ANOVA revealed significant differences between the methods [MS = 14.1 (4.3) mLO2·kg-1·min-1; V = 14.6 (4.4) mLO2·kg-1·min-1; and LLT = 12.3 (3.3) mLO2·kg-1·min-1; P < 0.001]. The assessment of agreement between methods provided the following results: ICC = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 0.87; P < 0.001; typical error, 2.1-2.8 mLO2·kg-1·min-1; and, 95% LoA and CV ranged from 43 to 55% and 15.9 to 19.6%, respectively.ConclusionsThe results show clinically significant variations between the methods and underscore the challenges of determining VT for perioperative risk stratification. The findings highlight the importance of meticulous evaluation of VT for predicting surgical outcomes. Future studies should address the prognostic perioperative utility of computed mathematical models combined with an expert's review. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00349947.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…