Heart Rate Recovery After 6-min Walking Test Predicts Acute Exacerbation in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Abnormalities of autonomic function have been reported in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our objectives were to identify determinants of abnormal heart rate recovery at 1 min (HRR1) following completion of the 6-min walk test (6MWT) in COPD and to establish whether abnormal HRR1 predicts acute exacerbations (AECOPD). METHODS: Hundred one COPD patients (FEV1 (SD) 53 (19)  % predicted) were prospectively recruited in a multi-center study. HRR1 after the 6MWT was evaluated as the difference between heart rate at the end of the test and 1 min into the recovery (HRR1). Linear and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of HRR1 and AECOPD, respectively. The best HRR1 cut-off point to predict AECOPD was selected using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The follow-up period was 12 months. RESULTS: Distance covered during the 6MWT (m) and DLco (% predicted) were independently associated with HRR1 (r 2 = 0.51, p = 0.001). Among several potential covariates, HRR1 emerged as the most significant predictor of AECOPD (Odds ratio [OR], 0.91 per beat of recovery; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.97; p = 0.02). The ROC analysis indicated that subjects with HRR1 less than 14 beats (AUC, 0.71 [CI] 0.60-0.80; p = 0.0001) were more likely to suffer an exacerbation during the follow-up period (for HRR1, p = 0.004 [log-rank test]). CONCLUSIONS: HRR1 after the 6MWT is an independent predictor factor for AECOPD. Further studies are warranted to examine the physiological mechanisms associating a delayed HRR and acute exacerbations in COPD patients.

Validity of physical activity monitors during daily life in patients with COPD.

Symptoms during physical activity and physical inactivity are hallmarks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to evaluate the validity and usability of six activity monitors in patients with COPD against the doubly labelled water (DLW) indirect calorimetry method. 80 COPD patients (mean ± sd age 68 ± 6 years and forced expiratory volume in 1 s 57 ± 19% predicted) recruited in four centres each wore simultaneously three or four out of six commercially available monitors validated in chronic conditions for 14 consecutive days. A priori validity criteria were defined. These included the ability to explain total energy expenditure (TEE) variance through multiple regression analysis, using TEE as the dependent variable with total body water (TBW) plus several physical activity monitor outputs as independent variables; and correlation with activity energy expenditure (AEE) measured by DLW. The Actigraph GT3X (Actigraph LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA), and DynaPort MoveMonitor (McRoberts BV, The Hague, the Netherlands) best explained the majority of the TEE variance not explained by TBW (53% and 70%, respectively) and showed the most significant correlations with AEE (r=0.71, p<0.001 and r=0.70, p<0.0001, respectively). The results of this study should guide users in choosing valid activity monitors for research or for clinical use in patients with chronic diseases such as COPD.

Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review.

The assessment of physical activity in healthy populations and in those with chronic diseases is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors (AM) have been appropriately validated for use in assessing physical activity in these groups. Following a systematic literature search we found 134 papers meeting the inclusion criteria; 40 conducted in a field setting (validation against doubly labelled water), 86 in a laboratory setting (validation against a metabolic cart, metabolic chamber) and 8 in a field and laboratory setting. Correlation coefficients between AM outcomes and energy expenditure (EE) by the criterion method (doubly labelled water and metabolic cart/chamber) and percentage mean differences between EE estimation from the monitor and EE measurement by the criterion method were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool the results across studies where possible. Types of devices were compared using meta-regression analyses. Most validation studies had been performed in healthy adults (n=118), with few carried out in patients with chronic diseases (n=16). For total EE, correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices. For active EE, correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices. Uniaxial devices tended to underestimate TEE (-12.07 (95%CI; -18.28 to -5.85) %) compared to triaxial (-6.85 (95%CI; -18.20 to 4.49) %, p=0.37) and were statistically significantly less accurate than multisensor devices (-3.64 (95%CI; -8.97 to 1.70) %, p<0.001). TEE was underestimated during slow walking speeds in 69% of the lab validation studies compared to 37%, 30% and 37% of the studies during intermediate, fast walking speed and running, respectively. The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome. Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors. Since activity monitors are less accurate at slow walking speeds and information about validated activity monitors in chronic disease populations is lacking, proper validation studies in these populations are needed prior to their inclusion in clinical trials.

Validity of six activity monitors in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison with indirect calorimetry.

Reduced physical activity is an important feature of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Various activity monitors are available but their validity is poorly established. The aim was to evaluate the validity of six monitors in patients with COPD. We hypothesized triaxial monitors to be more valid compared to uniaxial monitors. Thirty-nine patients (age 68±7 years, FEV(1) 54±18%predicted) performed a one-hour standardized activity protocol. Patients wore 6 monitors (Kenz Lifecorder (Kenz), Actiwatch, RT3, Actigraph GT3X (Actigraph), Dynaport MiniMod (MiniMod), and SenseWear Armband (SenseWear)) as well as a portable metabolic system (Oxycon Mobile). Validity was evaluated by correlation analysis between indirect calorimetry (VO(2)) and the monitor outputs: Metabolic Equivalent of Task [METs] (SenseWear, MiniMod), activity counts (Actiwatch), vector magnitude units (Actigraph, RT3) and arbitrary units (Kenz) over the whole protocol and slow versus fast walking. Minute-by-minute correlations were highest for the MiniMod (r = 0.82), Actigraph (r = 0.79), SenseWear (r = 0.73) and RT3 (r = 0.73). Over the whole protocol, the mean correlations were best for the SenseWear (r = 0.76), Kenz (r = 0.52), Actigraph (r = 0.49) and MiniMod (r = 0.45). The MiniMod (r = 0.94) and Actigraph (r = 0.88) performed better in detecting different walking speeds. The Dynaport MiniMod, Actigraph GT3X and SenseWear Armband (all triaxial monitors) are the most valid monitors during standardized physical activities. The Dynaport MiniMod and Actigraph GT3X discriminate best between different walking speeds.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation prevents muscle function deterioration in exacerbated COPD: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: COPD is a condition with systemic effects of which peripheral muscle dysfunction is a prominent contributor to exercise limitation, health related quality of life (HRQoL) impairment, and is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a successful strategy to improve exercise tolerance and HRQoL through the improvement of muscle function in patients with stable COPD or early after severe exacerbations of COPD (SECOPD). However, muscle function further deteriorates during SECOPD before early PR programmes commence. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of quadriceps neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) applied during a SECOPD to prevent muscle function deterioration. METHODS: We have conducted a pilot study in eleven COPD patients (FEV(1) 41.3 ± 5.6 % pred) admitted to hospital with a SECOPD. We randomly allocated one leg to receive NMES (once a day for 14 days) with the other leg as a control (non-stimulated leg). We measured the change in quadriceps maximal voluntary contraction (ΔQMVC) as the main outcome. RESULTS: Mean quadriceps muscle strength decreased in control legs (ΔQMVC -2.9 ± 5.3 N, p = ns) but increased in the stimulated legs (ΔQMVC 19.2 ± 6.1 N, p < 0.01). The difference in ΔQMVC between groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The effect of NMES was directly related to the stimulation intensity (∑mA) applied throughout the 14 sessions (r = 0.76, p < 0.01). All patients tolerated NMES without any side effects. CONCLUSIONS: NMES is a feasible and effective treatment to prevent quadriceps muscle strength derangement during severe exacerbations of COPD and may be used to compliment early post-exacerbation pulmonary rehabilitation.

Overestimation of thoracic gas volume during the airway resistance maneuver. A potential error in the diagnosis of air trapping.

There are no data published about the agreement between the measurement of thoracic gas volume (TGV) during the airway resistance (TGV-Raw) and the conventional technique described by Dubois. The aim of this study was to establish the agreement between both methods to measure TGV. We studied eighty consecutive subjects. Only sixty-six performed acceptable plethysmography maneuvers. The patients were measured with a constant volume plethysmograph (Medical Graphics 1085 DL). TGV was performed in the same patient with two techniques: 1) during the airway resistance (Raw) measurement (TGV-Raw) and 2) during quiet breathing at the end of expiration (TGV). The panting frequency was 1 to 2 Hz with both maneuvers. The differences between both techniques were expressed in percentage (deltaTGV %) and absolute values (deltaTGV). The TGV-Raw of the whole group was higher than TGV (3.69 +/- 1.08 l vs 3.28 +/- 1.05 l, p < 0.001). Similarly, the subgroups of patients had a greater TGV-Raw than TGV (Normal: 3.44 +/- 0.77 l vs 2.98 +/- 0.72 l , p < 0.001; Obstructive: 4.08 +/- 1.19 l vs 3.71 +/- 1.15 l, p < 0.001; Restrictive: 2.62 +/- 0.49 l vs 2.25 +/- 0.51 l, p < 0.01). There was a considerable lack of agreement between the TGV-Raw and TGV, with discrepancies of up to +0.95 l or +34%. The deltaTGV % was similar between the patients' subgroups and between the subjects with different degree of airflow obstruction (Normal: 16.5 +/- 10%, Obstructive: 10.8 +/- 9.4%, Restrictive: 18 +/- 14.3%, p NS; mild obstruction: 10.7 +/- 11%, moderate obstruction: 12.3 +/- 5.7, severe obstruction: 10.1+/- 6.6, p NS). In conclusion, TGV-Raw was larger than TGV. This was because the patients generally panted at a volume above FRC when performing the TGV-Raw maneuver. TGV-Raw should not be used to estimate FRC because FRC would be overestimated and the diagnosis of air trapping may be erroneous.

Overestimation of thoracic gas volume during the airway resistance maneuver. A potential error in the diagnosis of air trapping.

There are no data published about the agreement between the measurement of thoracic gas volume (TGV) during the airway resistance (TGV-Raw) and the conventional technique described by Dubois. The aim of this study was to establish the agreement between both methods to measure TGV. We studied eighty consecutive subjects. Only sixty-six performed acceptable plethysmography maneuvers. The patients were measured with a constant volume plethysmograph (Medical Graphics 1085 DL). TGV was performed in the same patient with two techniques: 1) during the airway resistance (Raw) measurement (TGV-Raw) and 2) during quiet breathing at the end of expiration (TGV). The panting frequency was 1 to 2 Hz with both maneuvers. The differences between both techniques were expressed in percentage (deltaTGV

) and absolute values (deltaTGV). The TGV-Raw of the whole group was higher than TGV (3.69 +/- 1.08 l vs 3.28 +/- 1.05 l, p < 0.001). Similarly, the subgroups of patients had a greater TGV-Raw than TGV (Normal: 3.44 +/- 0.77 l vs 2.98 +/- 0.72 l , p < 0.001; Obstructive: 4.08 +/- 1.19 l vs 3.71 +/- 1.15 l, p < 0.001; Restrictive: 2.62 +/- 0.49 l vs 2.25 +/- 0.51 l, p < 0.01). There was a considerable lack of agreement between the TGV-Raw and TGV, with discrepancies of up to +0.95 l or +34

. The deltaTGV

was similar between the patients subgroups and between the subjects with different degree of airflow obstruction (Normal: 16.5 +/- 10

, Obstructive: 10.8 +/- 9.4

, Restrictive: 18 +/- 14.3

, p NS; mild obstruction: 10.7 +/- 11

, moderate obstruction: 12.3 +/- 5.7, severe obstruction: 10.1+/- 6.6, p NS). In conclusion, TGV-Raw was larger than TGV. This was because the patients generally panted at a volume above FRC when performing the TGV-Raw maneuver. TGV-Raw should not be used to estimate FRC because FRC would be overestimated and the diagnosis of air trapping may be erroneous.

Nociones sobre marcadores exhalados de inflamación pulmonar y su rol en la clínica / Reference values of exchaled markers of pulmonary inflammation and their role in medicine

Los marcadores exhalados de inflamación pulmonar son sustancias que se encuentran vehiculizadas en el aire dentro de la vía aérea y pueden ser medidos en forma no invasiva mediante diversos dispositivos. Estos marcadores se sintetizan en todo el organismo y al ser cuantificados en el aire exhalado pueden indicar el nivel de inflamación y estrés oxidativo, principalmente pulmonar. Aunque los trabajos de investigación realizados sientan las bases de su aplicación, hacen falta ensayos clínicos a largo plazo que demuestren la verdadera utilidad en la práctica médica

Nociones sobre marcadores exhalados de inflamación pulmonar y su rol en la clínica / Reference values of exchaled markers of pulmonary inflammation and their role in medicine

Los marcadores exhalados de inflamación pulmonar son sustancias que se encuentran vehiculizadas en el aire dentro de la vía aérea y pueden ser medidos en forma no invasiva mediante diversos dispositivos. Estos marcadores se sintetizan en todo el organismo y al ser cuantificados en el aire exhalado pueden indicar el nivel de inflamación y estrés oxidativo, principalmente pulmonar. Aunque los trabajos de investigación realizados sientan las bases de su aplicación, hacen falta ensayos clínicos a largo plazo que demuestren la verdadera utilidad en la práctica médica