RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Reliability of maximum oxygen uptake in cardiopulmonary exercise testing with continuous laryngoscopy
JF ERJ Open Research
JO erjor
FD European Respiratory Society
SP 00825-2020
DO 10.1183/23120541.00825-2020
A1 Mette Engan
A1 Ida Jansrud Hammer
A1 Marianne Bekken
A1 Thomas Halvorsen
A1 Zoe Louise Fretheim-Kelly
A1 Maria Vollsæter
A1 Lars Peder Vatshelle Bovim
A1 Ola Drange Røksund
A1 Hege Clemm
YR 2020
UL http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/11/26/23120541.00825-2020.abstract
AB Objective Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is the gold standard to evaluate symptom-limiting exercise intolerance, while continuous laryngoscopy performed during exercise (CLE) is required to diagnose exercised induced laryngeal obstruction (EILO). Combining CPET with CLE would save time and resources; however, the CPET data may be distorted by the extra equipment. We therefore aimed to study if CPET with CLE influences peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and other gas exchange parameters when compared to a regular CPET.Methods Forty healthy athletes without exercise related breathing problems, 15–35 years of age, performed CPET to peak exercise with and without an added CLE set-up, in randomised order 2–3 days apart, applying an identical computerised treadmill protocol.Results At peak exercise, the mean difference (95% confidence interval) between CPET with and without extra CLE set-up for VO2peak, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), minute ventilation (VE) and heart rate (HR) was 0.2 (−0.4 to 0.8) mL·kg−1·min−1, 0.01(−0.007 to 0.027) units, 2.6 (−1.3 to 6.5) L·min−1, and 1.4 (−0.8 to 3.5) beats/minute, respectively. Agreement (95% limits of agreement) for VO2peak, RER and VE was 0.2 (±3.7) mL·kg−1·min−1, 0.01 (±0.10) units and 2.6 (±24.0) L·min−1, respectively. No systematic or proportional bias was found except for the completed distance, which was 49 (95% CI 16 to 82) meters longer during CPET.Conclusions Parameters of gas exchange including VO2peak and RER, obtained from a maximal CPET performed with the extra CLE set-up, can be used interchangeably with data obtained from standard CPET, thus preventing unnecessary additional testing.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dr. Engan has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Hammer has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Marianne Bekken has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Halvorsen has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Zoe Fretheim-Kelly has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Vollsæter has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Bovim has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Røksund has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Dr. Clemm has nothing to disclose.