The Physiological Burden of the 6-Minute Walk Test Compared With Cardiopulmonary Exercise Stress Test in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Management of aortic stenosis (AS) relies on symptoms. Exercise testing is recommended for asymptomatic patients with significant AS but is often experienced as forbidding and/or technically unrealistic for patients who are often frail, deconditioned, and intimidated by the exercise test. We compared the physiological burden assessed with gas exchange assessments to gauge and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) of a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to a cardiopulmonary exercise stress test (CPET) in patients with severe AS. peak oxygen utilization Methods Adults with equivocal symptoms and severe AS (1-aortic valve area [AVA] ≤ 1.0 cm 2 or AVA index ≤ 0.6 cm 2 /m 2 , 2-peak aortic jet velocity ≥ 4.0 m/sec, 3-mean transvalvular pressure gradient ≥ 40 mm Hg by rest or dobutamine stress echocardiography, or 4-aortic valve calcification ≥ 1200 in women or ≥ 2000 AU in men) were studied. All participants completed both a 6MWT and symptom-limited progressive bicycle exercise testing. Breath-by-breath gas analysis and 12-lead electrocardiography were completed during 6MWT and CPET. Results : Eleven patients were studied. Patients walked on average 330 ± 75 m during the 6MWT and achieved a maximal workload of 48 ± 14 watts during the CPET. During the 6MWT, peak maximal oxygen uptake ( V ˙ O 2 peak) was 12.8 ± 2.5 vs 10.8 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min during the CPET. Respiratory exchange ratio exceeded 1.1 in both the 6MWT and CPET indicating similarly high exertion. Compared with the CPET, a larger proportion of the 6MWT was performed at a high intensity level (78% ± 28% vs 33% ± 24% at > 85% V̇O 2 peak; P = 0.004). Conclusions The 6MWT with breath-by-breath gas analysis was well tolerated and able to achieve a physiological intense RER and V ˙ O 2 peak that are similar to symptom-limited CPET in patients with severe AS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".