[A new procedure for the estimation of physical fitness of patients during clinical rehabilitation using the 6-minutes walk test].
AIMS OF THE INVESTIGATION: The repetition of the 6-minutes walk test (6 MWT) in older patients is frequently performed in order to document the maximal walking distance, although it is not recommended in any guidelines on exercise tests and although there is common consent to save clinical resources in terms of time and staff. Therefore, we have examined whether and to what extent the repetition of the walk tests helps patients to get more familiar with this kind of exercise test. Thus the acquired physiological data should reliably describe the physical fitness of the patients at the beginning and at the end of their clinical rehabilitation.


METHODS
35 patients performed their walk tests before and after 3 - 4 weeks of clinical rehabilitation. Each test has been repeated after one hour of recovery. The patients were instructed to walk during 6 minutes as fast as possible. They were equipped with a mobile pulse oximeter for recording oxygen saturation and heart rate. The distance, S, and the heart rate, fc, were measured. Measurements were performed every 30 seconds and recorded. The efficiency, E (E = S/6/fc), was calculated as the ratio of distance per minute and the mean heart rate during the test.


RESULTS
In the first test the patients walked 416 +/- 63 m at a heart rate of 104.7 +/- 15.7 beats/min, in the first repeated test 454 +/- 71 m at a heart of 106.3 +/- 17.4 beats/min. In the second test, after clinical therapy, they walked 438 +/- 58 m at a heart rate of 106.3 +/- 17.4 beats/min, in the second repeated test 473 +/- 56 m at 108.6 +/- 13.2/min. The difference of the walking distances of the tests at the entrance were found to be 38.4 +/- 26.2 m (+ 9.3 +/- 6.2%), at the end of clinical rehabilitation 35 +/- 26 m (+ 8.4 +/- 6.4%). Both differences are found to be independent from the distance of the first test. They are not significantly different. The efficiency was not significantly different in the initial and final test (0.673 +/- 0.129 and 0.689 +/- 0.085 m/beat, respectively). The difference in efficiency, when repeating the tests at the beginning, was: 0.053 +/- 0.062 m/beat; at the end of the rehabilitation: 0.042 +/- 0.047 m/beat. They are found to be similar.


CONCLUSIONS
The distances the patients walked in the repeated tests at the entrance and at the end of their clinical rehabilitation were, besides the calculated efficiency, E, significantly increased. However, the increases in distance and efficiency are identical on both occasions, therefore the repetition delivers no further information. The test should be performed without repetitions in clinical routine investigations. The patient's performance in the second walk test with an unchanged distance at a lower heart rate reveals an improved physical fitness. This is solely described by an increase of efficiency, E. Therefore the introduction of E is a suitable measure of the quantified effect of exercise training, even if the patient is not cooperative during the tests. E is proved to be a suitable estimation for the assessment of physical fitness as a benefit of clinical rehabilitation.
Marek
W
W
Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Augusta-Kranken-Anstalt, Bochum. Wolfgang.Marek@ruhr-unibochum.de
Marek
E
E
Friz
Y
Y
Vogel
P
P
Mückenhoff
K
K
Kotschy-Lang
N
N
D000368:Aged; D002908:Chronic Disease / Q000145:classification* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D005080:Exercise Test / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D015577:Geriatric Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010808:Physical Examination / Q000379:methods*; D010809:Physical Fitness; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity