Wenger N K
Emory University School of Medicine.
Trans Assoc Life Insur Med Dir Am. 1991;74:78-91.
Assessment of functional capacity, of ability and disability among patients with cardiovascular disease raises a number of problems and issues for which there are currently only imperfect or incomplete answers. Emphasis must be placed on the lack of predictable relationship of anatomic abnormality and functional abnormality. For example, the percentage obstruction of the coronary artery documents the anatomic extent of the disease, rather than the limitation of functional capacity; the same lack of predictive value characterizes the decrease in resting ventricular ejection fraction. The response to a challenge of activity or exertion currently appears to offer the optimal method of assessing functional capacity for work, although a brief continuous exercise test may not be the optimal exercise protocol by which to evaluate endurance. As an example, in our laboratory, comparing a low-level continuous exercise test protocol with one with an intermittent exercise design (i.e., periods of exercise alternating with periods at rest), patients typically can perform at least one additional stage of exercise on the discontinuous or intermittent test protocol. This occurred without significant differences in the final heart rate, blood pressure, or rate-pressure product, probably because most patients so tested were limited not by myocardial ischemia but by musculoskeletal problems, fatigue, or dyspnea (8). An unmet need is a comparison of exercise test protocols for the assessment of functional capacity, possibly the development of new test protocols for patients with limited functional capacity, and the evaluation of the relationship of these test data to eight hours of occupational activity in the workplace setting. It appears logical that a diagnostic exercise test should differ from one designed to determine functional capacity, but the results of a variety of exercise test protocols should be compared with the actual physical activity able to be performed in the workplace, as well as with reported symptoms. It should be defined whether testing is to be performed on optimal medical therapy, which I believe should be the case; or whether the technique used for diagnostic exercise testing, that of the minimal medication possible, is to be employed. Next, the time after surgical intervention or following a prolonged hospitalization at which to test should be delineated in that the deconditioning effect of immobilization may substantially decrease effort tolerance, unrelated to the severity of the underlying cardiovascular disease. Finally, should exercise rehabilitation be recommended or required before testing for cardiovascular impairment; major improvement in functional capacity has occurred in previously sedentary patients with a variety of cardiovascular diseases, including those with important manifestations of myocardial ischemia and ventricular dysfunction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
评估心血管疾病患者的功能能力、能力与残疾状况引发了诸多问题,而目前对于这些问题只有不完善或不完整的答案。必须强调的是,解剖学异常与功能异常之间缺乏可预测的关系。例如,冠状动脉阻塞的百分比反映的是疾病的解剖学范围,而非功能能力的受限程度;静息心室射血分数的降低同样缺乏预测价值。目前,对活动或运动挑战的反应似乎是评估工作功能能力的最佳方法,尽管简短的持续运动测试可能并非评估耐力的最佳运动方案。例如,在我们实验室,将低水平持续运动测试方案与间歇运动设计(即运动时段与休息时段交替)的方案进行比较时,患者在不连续或间歇测试方案中通常能够多完成至少一个运动阶段。最终心率、血压或心率 - 血压乘积并无显著差异,这可能是因为大多数接受此类测试的患者并非受心肌缺血限制,而是受肌肉骨骼问题、疲劳或呼吸困难的限制(8)。一个尚未满足的需求是对评估功能能力的运动测试方案进行比较,可能需要为功能能力有限的患者开发新的测试方案,并评估这些测试数据与工作场所八小时职业活动之间的关系。诊断性运动测试应与旨在确定功能能力的测试有所不同,这似乎是合理的,但应将各种运动测试方案的结果与在工作场所能够实际进行的体力活动以及所报告的症状进行比较。应明确测试是在最佳药物治疗状态下进行(我认为应该如此),还是采用用于诊断性运动测试的尽可能少用药的技术。接下来,应确定手术干预后或长期住院后进行测试的时间,因为固定不动的去适应效应可能会大幅降低运动耐力,而这与潜在心血管疾病的严重程度无关。最后,在测试心血管功能损害之前,是否应推荐或要求进行运动康复;此前久坐不动的各种心血管疾病患者,包括有心肌缺血和心室功能障碍重要表现的患者,其功能能力已出现显著改善。(摘要截选至400字)