Evaluation of an exercise field test using heart rate monitors to assess cardiorespiratory fitness and heart rate recovery in an asymptomatic population

Crystal L. Coolbaugh, Ivan B. Anderson, Machelle D. Wilson, David A. Hawkins, Ezra A Amsterdam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart rate recovery (HRR) can improve risk stratification for cardiovascular disease, but these measurements are rarely made in asymptomatic individuals due to cost. An exercise field test (EFT) to assess CRF and HRR would be an inexpensive method for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in large populations. This study assessed 1) the predictive accuracy of a 12-minute run/walk EFT for estimating CRF (VO2peak) and 2) the accuracy of HRR measured after an EFT using a heart rate monitor (HRM) in an asymptomatic population. Methods: Fifty subjects (48% women) ages 18-45 years completed a symptom-limited exercise tolerance test (ETT) (Bruce protocol) and an EFT on separate days. During the ETT, VO2peak was measured by a metabolic cart, and heart rate was measured continuously by a HRM and a metabolic cart. Results: EFT distance and sex independently predicted VO 2peak. The average absolute difference between observed and predicted VO2peak was 0.26±3.27 ml·kg -1·min-1 for our model compared to 7.55±3.64 ml·kg-1·min-1 for the Cooper model. HRM HRR data were equivalent to respective metabolic cart values during the ETT. HRR at 1 minute post-exercise during ETT compared to the EFT had a moderate correlation (r = 0.75, p<0.001). Conclusion: A more accurate model to estimate CRF from a 12-minute run/walk EFT was developed, and HRR can be measured using a HRM in an asymptomatic population outside of clinical settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere97704
JournalPLoS One
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 21 2014

Fingerprint

Exercise Test
heart rate
exercise
Heart Rate
Recovery
monitoring
Population
Exercise Tolerance
testing
carts
cardiovascular diseases
Cardiorespiratory Fitness
Cardiovascular Diseases
Risk assessment
risk assessment
Exercise
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of an exercise field test using heart rate monitors to assess cardiorespiratory fitness and heart rate recovery in an asymptomatic population. / Coolbaugh, Crystal L.; Anderson, Ivan B.; Wilson, Machelle D.; Hawkins, David A.; Amsterdam, Ezra A.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 9, No. 5, e97704, 21.05.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0c1945d32cdc440b9e552473a4fc54a1,
title = "Evaluation of an exercise field test using heart rate monitors to assess cardiorespiratory fitness and heart rate recovery in an asymptomatic population",
abstract = "Purpose: Measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart rate recovery (HRR) can improve risk stratification for cardiovascular disease, but these measurements are rarely made in asymptomatic individuals due to cost. An exercise field test (EFT) to assess CRF and HRR would be an inexpensive method for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in large populations. This study assessed 1) the predictive accuracy of a 12-minute run/walk EFT for estimating CRF (V•O2peak) and 2) the accuracy of HRR measured after an EFT using a heart rate monitor (HRM) in an asymptomatic population. Methods: Fifty subjects (48{\%} women) ages 18-45 years completed a symptom-limited exercise tolerance test (ETT) (Bruce protocol) and an EFT on separate days. During the ETT, V•O2peak was measured by a metabolic cart, and heart rate was measured continuously by a HRM and a metabolic cart. Results: EFT distance and sex independently predicted V•O 2peak. The average absolute difference between observed and predicted V•O2peak was 0.26±3.27 ml·kg -1·min-1 for our model compared to 7.55±3.64 ml·kg-1·min-1 for the Cooper model. HRM HRR data were equivalent to respective metabolic cart values during the ETT. HRR at 1 minute post-exercise during ETT compared to the EFT had a moderate correlation (r = 0.75, p<0.001). Conclusion: A more accurate model to estimate CRF from a 12-minute run/walk EFT was developed, and HRR can be measured using a HRM in an asymptomatic population outside of clinical settings.",
author = "Coolbaugh, {Crystal L.} and Anderson, {Ivan B.} and Wilson, {Machelle D.} and Hawkins, {David A.} and Amsterdam, {Ezra A}",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0097704",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of an exercise field test using heart rate monitors to assess cardiorespiratory fitness and heart rate recovery in an asymptomatic population

AU - Coolbaugh, Crystal L.

AU - Anderson, Ivan B.

AU - Wilson, Machelle D.

AU - Hawkins, David A.

AU - Amsterdam, Ezra A

PY - 2014/5/21

Y1 - 2014/5/21

N2 - Purpose: Measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart rate recovery (HRR) can improve risk stratification for cardiovascular disease, but these measurements are rarely made in asymptomatic individuals due to cost. An exercise field test (EFT) to assess CRF and HRR would be an inexpensive method for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in large populations. This study assessed 1) the predictive accuracy of a 12-minute run/walk EFT for estimating CRF (V•O2peak) and 2) the accuracy of HRR measured after an EFT using a heart rate monitor (HRM) in an asymptomatic population. Methods: Fifty subjects (48% women) ages 18-45 years completed a symptom-limited exercise tolerance test (ETT) (Bruce protocol) and an EFT on separate days. During the ETT, V•O2peak was measured by a metabolic cart, and heart rate was measured continuously by a HRM and a metabolic cart. Results: EFT distance and sex independently predicted V•O 2peak. The average absolute difference between observed and predicted V•O2peak was 0.26±3.27 ml·kg -1·min-1 for our model compared to 7.55±3.64 ml·kg-1·min-1 for the Cooper model. HRM HRR data were equivalent to respective metabolic cart values during the ETT. HRR at 1 minute post-exercise during ETT compared to the EFT had a moderate correlation (r = 0.75, p<0.001). Conclusion: A more accurate model to estimate CRF from a 12-minute run/walk EFT was developed, and HRR can be measured using a HRM in an asymptomatic population outside of clinical settings.

AB - Purpose: Measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and heart rate recovery (HRR) can improve risk stratification for cardiovascular disease, but these measurements are rarely made in asymptomatic individuals due to cost. An exercise field test (EFT) to assess CRF and HRR would be an inexpensive method for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in large populations. This study assessed 1) the predictive accuracy of a 12-minute run/walk EFT for estimating CRF (V•O2peak) and 2) the accuracy of HRR measured after an EFT using a heart rate monitor (HRM) in an asymptomatic population. Methods: Fifty subjects (48% women) ages 18-45 years completed a symptom-limited exercise tolerance test (ETT) (Bruce protocol) and an EFT on separate days. During the ETT, V•O2peak was measured by a metabolic cart, and heart rate was measured continuously by a HRM and a metabolic cart. Results: EFT distance and sex independently predicted V•O 2peak. The average absolute difference between observed and predicted V•O2peak was 0.26±3.27 ml·kg -1·min-1 for our model compared to 7.55±3.64 ml·kg-1·min-1 for the Cooper model. HRM HRR data were equivalent to respective metabolic cart values during the ETT. HRR at 1 minute post-exercise during ETT compared to the EFT had a moderate correlation (r = 0.75, p<0.001). Conclusion: A more accurate model to estimate CRF from a 12-minute run/walk EFT was developed, and HRR can be measured using a HRM in an asymptomatic population outside of clinical settings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901358264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84901358264&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0097704

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0097704

M3 - Article

C2 - 24848378

AN - SCOPUS:84901358264

VL - 9

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e97704

ER -