0
Clinical Investigations: PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS |

Peak Physiologic Responses to Arm and Leg Ergometry in Male and Female Patients With Airflow Obstruction*

Rick Carter; David B. Holiday; James Stocks; Brian Tiep
Author and Funding Information

*From the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler (Drs. Carter, Holiday, and Stocks), Tyler, TX; and Pulmonary Care Continuum (Dr. Tiep), Irwindale, CA.

Correspondence to: Rick Carter, PhD, MBA, FCCP, Professor of Medicine and Physiology, Center for Clinical Research, The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler, 11937 US Highway 271, Tyler, TX 75708; e-mail: Rick.Carter@UTHCT.EDU



Chest. 2003;124(2):511-518. doi:10.1378/chest.124.2.511
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study objective: To investigate differences in work capacity for the arms and legs in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Design: Cross-sectional investigation.

Patients: One hundred twenty-four patients (90 men and 34 women) aged 45 to 81 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD. FEV1 ranged from 0.70 to 2.79 L/min (FVC, 1.73 to 5.77 L; FEV1/FVC, 24 to 69%). All patients were in stable condition at the time of testing and receiving a stable drug regime.

Measurements: Each patient completed a demographic and medical history questionnaire, pulmonary function studies (spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity), peak exercise ergometry with gas exchange for the arms and legs; they also rated their subjective assessment of perceived dyspnea and extremity fatigue using Borg scores during exercise.

Results: Patients were of comparable age, with men taller and heavier than women. Smoking history was significantly less for women (47.9 pack-years vs 66.6 pack-years for men) even though each group presented with equivalent age (p > 0.05). Women were less obstructed than men, with FEV1/FVC (mean ± SD) of 46.5 ± 10.9% vs 40.2 ± 9.3%, respectively. Ventilatory limitation during exercise was noted for all patients studied. Peak work capacity was greater for men, and leg peak responses were greater than arm values for each gender. As airway obstruction increased, work capacity became more limited. Peak arm work achieved was 38.9 ± 19.6 W, oxygen uptake (V̇o2) was 903.9 ± 263.5 mL/min, and minute ventilation (V̇e) was 33.7 ± 9.5 L. Peak leg work value was 62.9 ± 24.8 W, V̇o2 was 1,091.4 ± 321.5 mL/min, and V̇e was 39.3 ± 12.0 L. Hence, arm values were 62%, 83%, and 85% of the measured leg values, respectively. Dyspnea and extremity effort scores were similar for men and women, and for arms and legs. Regression analysis was used to derive prediction equations for arm work from measured leg ergometry testing. For watts of work, a three-variable model emerged explaining 66% of the variance; V̇o2 yielded a four-variable model with 80% of the variance explained; and V̇e yielded a three-variable model explaining 72% of the variance.

Conclusion: Arm work is reduced by 38% that of the legs, while more modest reductions are noted for V̇o2 and V̇e, suggesting greater mechanical efficiency for leg work as compared to arm work. These data also suggest greater metabolic demand for respiratory muscles and arm ergometry. Dyspnea and extremity Borg scores were equivalent for each modality and level of airway obstruction studied, suggesting that perception plays an important role in limiting exercise, and that a threshold for termination of exercise may exist. Further, peak leg ergometry results can be used with pulmonary function indexes to predict peak arm workload in watts, V̇o2, and V̇Ve. These data may be used to assist the clinician in prescribing rehabilitation or estimating arm exercise ability when arm testing is unavailable.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543