&lt;p&gt;Minimal clinically important difference of 3-minute chair rise test and the DIRECT questionnaire after pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients&lt;/p&gt;

Lévesque, Jonathan; Antoniadis, Anestis; Li, Pei Zhi; Hérengt, F.; Brosson, Christophe; Grosbois, Jean-Marie; Bernady, A.; Bender, Anthony; Favre, Murielle; Guerder, Antoine; Surpas, P.; Similowski, Thomas; Aguilaniu, B.

doi:10.2147/copd.s187567

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Similarly, Lévesque et al reported a mean number of 51.9 ± 13.1 rises during the 3CRT in patients with COPD whose BODE index score was in the first favorable quartile (0-2 /10). 24 These results are consistent with the threshold of 49 rises found in the present study to predict a _ VO 2peak ≥ 15 mL/kg/minute in the present cohort. This study had several limitations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of the 3‐minute chair rise test as part of preoperative evaluation for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Peak oxygen uptake (trueV˙O2peak) measured by a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPX) is the gold‐standard for predicting surgical risk in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The 3‐minute chair rise test (3CRT) is a simple test requiring minimal resources. This study aimed to determine the ability of 3CRT to predict trueV˙O2peak in patients with NSCLC. Methods Retrospective data from CPX and 3CRT carried out in 36 patients with NSCLC between March 2018 and February 2019 were included. A multivariate analysis was undertaken to derive a predictive trueV˙O2peak equation based on performance on the 3CRT. In addition, sensitivity‐specificity analysis was carried out to estimate a threshold 3CRT value for the prediction of trueV˙O2peak ≥ 15 mL/kg/minute. Results The following equation was obtained: trueV˙O2peak predicted = (0.04765 × FEV1) ‐ (0.207 59 × BMI) ‐ (0.115 89 × age) + (0.386 09 × vertical distance) + 16.628 69; r2 = 0.75, P < 0.01. The bias between the trueV˙O2peak values predicted and measured during CPX was 0.0 ± 1.7 mL/kg/minute (95% limits of agreement [−3.5 to 3.5]). A performance ≥49 chair rises predicted trueV˙O2peak ≥ 15 mL/kg/minute with a sensitivity of 0.75 and a specificity of 0.81. Conclusions The level of error in the prediction of trueV˙O2peak from 3CRT performance was too great to recommend that 3CRT should replace CPX as the sole measurement of trueV˙O2peak. Nevertheless, the 3CRT could help to identify those patients that require CPX prior to lung resection surgery for NSCLC, larger prospective study is needed to confirm this hypothesis. Key points Significant findings of the study Cardiopulmonary exercise tests can stratify the surgical risk. Prediction of the peak oxygen uptake (trueV˙O2peak) value from the 3CRT yields an unacceptable level of error. However, a performance of 49 chair rises or more during the 3CRT could indicate a trueV˙O2peak ≥ 15 mL / kg / minute. What this study adds The 3CRT is a useful screening tool to determine the necessity for a comprehensive cardiopulmonary exercise test, whose access is limited in clinical practice. It could also allow early screening of patients requiring specific prehabilitation programs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of the 3‐minute chair rise test as part of preoperative evaluation for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This included five studies examining the 6MWT, 7-11 39 studies examining STS tests, 35 studies examining step tests 19,24, and 17 studies examining the Timed Up and Go (TUG). 17,19,24,33,42,49,50,[83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] Ten studies examined more than one test, including four that examined STS and TUG, 17,42,48,49 four that examined two kinds of STS test, 29,32,44,45 and two studies (in three reports) that examined STS, TUG and step tests. 18,23,50 The PRISMA diagram is in Figure 1 and study characteristics are in Supplementary Tables S2-S5.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 128 full text papers screened, 84 were included (85 reports). This included five studies examining the 6MWT, 7 – 11 39 studies examining STS tests, 12 – 50 35 studies examining step tests 19 , 24 , 50 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Home-based or remote exercise testing in chronic respiratory disease, during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A rapid review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify exercise tests that are suitable for home-based or remote administration in people with chronic lung disease. Methods: Rapid review of studies that reported home-based or remote administration of an exercise test in people with chronic lung disease, and studies reporting their clinimetric (measurement) properties. Results: 84 studies were included. Tests used at home were the 6-minute walk test (6MWT, two studies), sit-to-stand tests (STS, five studies), Timed Up and Go (TUG, 4 studies) and step tests (two studies). Exercise tests administered remotely were the 6MWT (two studies) and step test (one study). Compared to centre-based testing the 6MWT distance was similar when performed outdoors but shorter when performed at home (two studies). The STS, TUG and step tests were feasible, reliable (intra-class correlation coefficients >0.80), valid (concurrent and known groups validity) and moderately responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation (medium effect sizes). These tests elicited less desaturation than the 6MWT, and validated methods to prescribe exercise were not reported. Discussion: The STS, step and TUG tests can be performed at home, but do not accurately document desaturation with walking or allow exercise prescription. Patients at risk of desaturation should be prioritised for centre-based exercise testing when this is available.

show abstract

“…59,60 The DIRECT has also recently demonstrated to be responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation with a MCID of ≥2 units. 61 International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2021:16…”

Section: Assessment Of Changementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Assess Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Lewthwaite¹,

Jensen²,

Ekström³

2021

COPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Activity-related breathlessness is the most problematic symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arising from complex interactions between peripheral pathophysiology (both pulmonary and non-pulmonary) and central perceptual processing. To capture information on the breathlessness experienced by people with COPD, many different instruments exist, which vary in applicability depending on the purpose and context of assessment. We reviewed common breathlessness assessment instruments, providing recommendations around how to assess the severity of, or change in, breathlessness in people with COPD in daily life or in response to exercise provocation. A summary of 14 instruments for the assessment of breathlessness severity in daily life is presented, with 11/14 (79%) instruments having established minimal clinically importance differences (MCIDs) to assess and interpret breathlessness change. Instruments varied in their scope of assessment (functional impact of breathlessness or the severity of breathlessness during different activities, focal periods, or alongside other common COPD symptoms), dimensions of breathlessness assessed (uni-/multidimensional), rating scale properties and intended method of administration (self-administered versus interviewer led). Assessing breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation overcomes some limitations of daily life assessment, such as recall bias and lack of standardized exertional stimulus. To assess the severity of breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation, unidimensional or multidimensional instruments are available. Borg’s 0–10 category rating scale is the most widely used instrument and has estimates for a MCID during exercise. When assessing the severity of breathlessness during exercise, measures should be taken at a standardized submaximal point, whether during laboratory-based tests like cardiopulmonary exercise testing or field-based tests, such as the 3-min constant rate stair stepping or shuttle walking tests. Recommendations are provided around which instruments to use for breathlessness assessment in daily life and in relation to exertion in people with COPD.

show abstract

<p>Minimal clinically important difference of 3-minute chair rise test and the DIRECT questionnaire after pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients</p>

Cited by 17 publications

References 32 publications

Evaluation of the 3‐minute chair rise test as part of preoperative evaluation for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer

Evaluation of the 3‐minute chair rise test as part of preoperative evaluation for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer

Home-based or remote exercise testing in chronic respiratory disease, during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A rapid review

How to Assess Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About