These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Optimizing a Treadmill Ramp Protocol to Evaluate Aerobic Capacity of Hemiparetic Poststroke Patients.
    Author: Bernardes WL, Montenegro RA, Monteiro WD, de Almeida Freire R, Massaferri R, Farinatti P.
    Journal: J Strength Cond Res; 2018 Mar; 32(3):876-884. PubMed ID: 29466277.
    Abstract:
    Bernardes, WL, Montenegro, RA, Monteiro, WD, de Almeida Freire, R, Massaferri, R, and Farinatti, P. Optimizing a treadmill ramp protocol to evaluate aerobic capacity of hemiparetic poststroke patients. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 876-884, 2018-A correct assessment of cardiopulmonary capacity is important for aerobic training within motor rehabilitation of poststroke hemiparetic patients (PSHPs). However, specific cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) for these patients are scarce. We proposed adaptations in a protocol originally developed for PSHPs by Ovando et al. (CPET1). We hypothesized that our adapted protocol (CPET2) would improve the original test, by preventing early fatigue and increasing patients' peak performance. Eleven PSHPs (52 ± 14 years, 10 men) performed both protocols. CPET2 integrated changes in final speed (100-120% vs. 140% maximal speed in 10-m walking test), treadmill inclination (final inclination of 5 vs. 10%), and estimated test duration (10 vs. 8 minutes) to smooth the rate of workload increment of CPET1. Peak oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak) (20.3 ± 6.1 vs. 18.6 ± 5.0 ml·kg·min; p = 0.04), V[Combining Dot Above]O2 at gas exchange transition (V[Combining Dot Above]O2-GET) (11.5 ± 2.9 vs. 9.8 ± 2.0 ml·kg·min; p = 0.04), and time to exhaustion (10 ± 3 vs. 6 ± 2 minutes; p < 0.001) were higher in CPET2 than in CPET1. Slopes and intercepts of regressions describing relationships between V[Combining Dot Above]O2 vs. workload, heart rate vs. workload, and V[Combining Dot Above]O2 vs. heart rate were similar between CPETs. However, standard errors of estimates obtained for regressions between heart rate vs. workload (3.0 ± 1.3 vs. 3.8 ± 1.0 b·min; p = 0.004) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2 vs. heart rate (6.0 ± 2.1 vs. 4.8 ± 2.4 ml·kg·min; p = 0.05) were lower in CPET2 than in CPET1. In conclusion, the present adaptations in Ovando's CPET protocol increased exercise tolerance of PSHPs, eliciting higher V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak and V[Combining Dot Above]O2-GET, preventing earlier fatigue, and providing better physiological relationships along submaximal workloads.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]