• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Pulmonology . Comparison of different field tests to assess the physical capacity of post-COVID-19 patients

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Pulmonology


. 2022 Aug 1;S2531-0437(22)00195-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.07.011. Online ahead of print.
Comparison of different field tests to assess the physical capacity of post-COVID-19 patients


R Peroy-Badal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], A Sevillano-Castaño[SUP] 1 [/SUP], R Torres-Castro[SUP] 2 [/SUP], P García-Fernández[SUP] 3 [/SUP], J L Maté-Muñoz[SUP] 3 [/SUP], C Dumitrana[SUP] 4 [/SUP], E Sánchez Rodriguez[SUP] 4 [/SUP], M J de Frutos Lobo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], J Vilaró[SUP] 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: In coronavirus disease (COVID-19), physical capacity is one of the most impaired sequelae. Due to their simplicity and low cost, field tests such as the six-minute walk test (6MWT) are widely used However, in many places it is difficult to perform them and alternatives can be used such as the 1 min sit-to-stand test (1min-STST) or the Chester step test (CST). Therefore, our objective was to compare the 6MWT, 1min-STST and the CST in post-COVID-19 patients.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis in post-COVID-19 patients, compared with matched controls (CG). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were collected. We analysed oxygen saturation (SpO[SUB]2[/SUB]), heart rate (HR), and the modified Borg scale in the 6MWT, 1min-STST, and CST. Additionally, the correlations between tests were analysed.
Results: We recruited 27 post-COVID-19 patients and 27 matched controls. The median age was 48 (IQR 43-59) years old (44% female). The median distance walked in 6MWT was 461 (IQR 415-506) m in post-COVID-patients and 517 (IQR 461-560) m in CG (p = 0.001). In 1min-STST, the repetitions were 21.9 ± 6.7 and 28.3 ± 7.1 in the post-COVID-19 group and CG, respectively (p = 0.001). In the CST, the post-COVID-19 group performed 150 (86-204) steps vs the CG with 250 (250-250) steps (p < 0.001). We found correlations between the 6MWT with the 1min-STST in COVID-19 patients (r = 0.681, p < 0.001) and CG (r = 0.668, p < 0.001), and between the 6MWT and the CST in COVID-19 patients (r = 0.692, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: The 1min-STST and the CST correlated significantly with the 6MWT in patients post-COVID-19 being alternatives if the 6MWT cannot be performed.

Keywords: COVID-19; Dyspnoea; Fatigue; Six-minute walk test.
 
Back
Top Bottom