MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P423: Six Minutes Walk Test in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Maximal Exercise Testing Procedure?

2013· article· en· W117558003 on OpenAlexaff
Marjorie Bastien, Rodrigo Bagur, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Audrey Auclair, Paul Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContraindicationVO2 maxCardiopulmonary exercise testCardiologyTreadmillPopulationStenosisInternal medicinePhysical therapyBlood pressureHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale: Maximal exercise testing is an absolute contraindication in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS). Instead of maximal testing, the 6 minutes-walk test (6MWT) may be recommended to evaluate functional capacity and to establish prognostic. The aim of this study was to compare the 6MWT with a maximal exercise test in patients with SSAS. Method: A ramp cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a cycle ergometer taken as control, and a 6MWT, both with a breath-by-breath gas analysis, were performed in a population with SSAS waiting for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). During both tests, patients were monitored with continuous electrocardiogram. Blood pressure was taken every 2 minutes during CPET and at the beginning and the end of the 6MWT test. Patients underwent both tests. Results: A total of 12 patients aged 79.5 ± 5.9 years participated to these evaluations. During the 6MWT, patients walked a mean distance of 335±74 m, producing a mean maximal workload of 48.5±13.2 watts during CPET. Through CPET, patients achieved a maximal oxygen consumption (VO2peak) of 11.9±4.2 mL/kg/min, which was similar to the VO2peak reached during 6MWT (12.8±2.5 mL/kg/min, p=0.062). For both tests, the respiratory exchanged ratio exceeded 1.1 (CPET=1.16±0.06 and 6MWT=1.12±0.09, p=0.241), which is one criterion of a maximal exercise capacity test. In comparison to CPET, a higher proportion of the 6MWT was performed at high intensity level (>85% VO2peak); 74.2±29.0% of the 6MWT vs. 31.5±24.0% of CPET, p=0.004*. During CPET, 8 patients experimented abnormal blood pressure (BP) response (4 dropped their BP and 4 achieved maximal BP value during recovery). No complication occurred during both tests except for 3 patients who experienced angina pectoris. In this high-risk elderly cohort, lean body mass was the better anthropometric feature associated with better exercise capacity during CPET (r=-0.73, p=0.03*). Conclusion: Both exercise tests were very demanding for patients with SSAS waiting for TAVI. The 6MWT was a maximal effort and high intensity exertion was maintained for almost 75% of the test. The 6MWT was as intense as CPET suggesting the importance of an adequate monitoring while testing those patients. Considering that CPET allow blood pressure measure throughout the test and included a lower test portion in high intensity level, CPET may be more appropriate to evaluate functional capacity in patients with SSAS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207