Milani J, Fernhall B, Manfredi T
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1996 Nov-Dec;16(6):394-401. doi: 10.1097/00008483-199611000-00009.
This study compared the accuracy of common clinical treadmill and arm ergometry equations in estimating the rate of oxygen consumption for males with coronary artery disease.
Measured and estimated submaximal and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2sub and VO2max) were compared during clinical treadmill (TM) and arm ergometry (AE) graded exercise tests in 15 males with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Estimated VO2sub and VO2max were derived from popular modality specific estimation equations, including those of the American College of Sports Medicine, Bruce and colleagues, Balady and colleagues, and Manfre and colleagues.
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) 1991 TM equation overestimated VO2sub from 0.3 +/- 0.6 to 1 +/- 0.7 metabolic equivalents (METS) and VO2max by 3 +/- 3 METS, whereas the Bruce Normal Submax and Bruce Cardiac Submax equations inaccurately estimated VO2sub from -1 +/- 0.6 to 0.9 +/- 0.7 METS. The Bruce Active Max and Bruce Sedentary Max equations overestimated VO2max from 1 +/- 2 to 2 +/- 2 METS, whereas the Bruce Cardiac Max equation accurately estimated oxygen consumption at maximal exercise. The ACSM and Manfre Healthy AE equations underestimated VO2sub at low and intermediate workloads from 0.4 +/- 0.4 to 0.8 +/- 0.4 METS. However, the Balady Male and Manfre Cardiac AE equations underestimated VO2 at each submaximal work load from 0.6 +/- 0.3 to 1 +/- 0.6 METS and at maximal work loads from 0.8 +/- 0.9 to 2 +/- 0.8 METS. The ACSM and Manfre Healthy AE equations accurately estimated VO2 at greater submaximal work loads and at maximal exercise.
These data suggest that the ability to estimate VO2 in males with CAD is more accurately performed during nonweight-bearing arm activity, although the reason is not entirely understood, and significant inconsistencies exist in the ability to accurately estimate VO2 during treadmill exercise. These data further suggest concern regarding exercise prescription from estimated values derived from both treadmill and arm ergometry tests, because submaximal, and in some instances maximal, estimations were inaccurate. Future research should focus on the development of accurate estimations for those with CAD, primarily during submaximal work.
本研究比较了常见临床跑步机和手臂测力计方程在估计冠心病男性氧耗率方面的准确性。
在15名确诊为冠心病（CAD）的男性进行临床跑步机（TM）和手臂测力计（AE）分级运动试验期间，比较了测量的和估计的次最大和最大氧耗量（VO2sub和VO2max）。估计的VO2sub和VO2max来自流行的特定模式估计方程，包括美国运动医学学院、布鲁斯及其同事、巴拉迪及其同事以及曼弗雷及其同事的方程。
美国运动医学学院（ACSM）1991年的TM方程将VO2sub高估了0.3±0.6至1±0.7代谢当量（METS），将VO2max高估了3±3 METS，而布鲁斯正常次最大和布鲁斯心脏次最大方程对VO2sub的估计不准确，误差为-1±0.6至0.9±0.7 METS。布鲁斯活跃最大和布鲁斯久坐最大方程将VO2max高估了1±2至2±2 METS，而布鲁斯心脏最大方程准确估计了最大运动时的氧耗量。ACSM和曼弗雷健康AE方程在低和中等工作量下将VO2sub低估了0.4±0.4至0.8±0.4 METS。然而，巴拉迪男性和曼弗雷心脏AE方程在每个次最大工作负荷下将VO2低估了0.6±0.3至1±0.6 METS，在最大工作负荷下将VO2低估了0.8±0.9至2±0.8 METS。ACSM和曼弗雷健康AE方程在更大的次最大工作负荷和最大运动时准确估计了VO2。
这些数据表明，在非负重手臂活动期间，估计CAD男性VO2的能力更准确，尽管原因尚不完全清楚，并且在跑步机运动期间准确估计VO2的能力存在显著不一致。这些数据进一步表明，对于从跑步机和手臂测力计测试得出的估计值用于运动处方存在担忧，因为次最大，在某些情况下最大，估计不准确。未来的研究应侧重于为CAD患者开发准确的估计方法，主要是在次最大工作期间。
