Agreement between heart rate at first ventilatory threshold on treadmill and at 6-min walk test in coronary artery disease patients on β-blockers treatment

Calegari, Leonardo; Moreira, Igor; Falkowski, Andrei; Reolão, José Basileu Caon; Karsten, Marlus; Deresz, Luís Fernando; Leonardo Calegari; Igor Moreira; Andrei Falkowski; José Basileu Caon Reolão; Marlus Karsten; Luís Fernando Deresz

doi:10.12965/jer.2142488.244

J Exerc Rehabil > Volume 17(5);2021 > Article

Calegari, Moreira, Falkowski, Reolão, Karsten, and Deresz: Agreement between heart rate at first ventilatory threshold on treadmill and at 6-min walk test in coronary artery disease patients on β-blockers treatment

Original Article

Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation 2021; 17(5): 362-368.

Published online: October 26, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.2142488.244

Agreement between heart rate at first ventilatory threshold on treadmill and at 6-min walk test in coronary artery disease patients on β-blockers treatment

Leonardo Calegari^1,^*

, Igor Moreira², Andrei Falkowski², José Basileu Caon Reolão³, Marlus Karsten^4,^5,⁶, Luís Fernando Deresz^7,^8,⁹

¹Physical Therapy Department, Faculdade Especializada da Área da Saúde do Rio Grande do Sul (FASURGS), Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil

²Physical Therapy Department, Universidade de Passo Fundo (UPF), Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil

³Medicine College, Universidade de Passo Fundo (UPF), Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil

⁴Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil

⁵Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil

⁶Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil

⁷Physical Education Department, Health Sciences Institute, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Brazil

⁸Post Graduation Program in Health Applied Sciences, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Campus Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil

⁹Research Group Ciência, Saúde e Desempenho Físico, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Campus Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil

^*Corresponding author: Leonardo Calegari, Physical Therapy Department, Faculdade Especializada da Área da Saúde do Rio Grande do Sul, Angélica Otto, 160, Boqueirão, Passo Fundo, RS, 99025-270, Brazil, Email: profcalega@gmail.com

Received August 16, 2021 Accepted September 17, 2021

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to verify the accuracy of the agreement between heart rate at the first ventilatory threshold (HR_VT1) and heart rate at the end of the 6-min walk test (HR_6MWT) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients on β-blockers treatment. This was a cross-sectional study with stable CAD patients, which performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) on a treadmill and a 6-min walk test (6MWT) on nonconsecutive days. The accuracy of agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT was evaluated by Bland–Altman analysis and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (r_c), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and standard error of estimate (SEE). Seventeen stable CAD patients on β-blockers treatment (male, 64.7%; age, 61±10 years) were included in data analysis. The Bland–Altman analysis revealed a negative bias of −0.41±6.4 bpm (95% limits of agreements, −13 to 12.2 bpm) between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT. There was acceptable agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (r_c=0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.93; study power analysis=0.79). The MAPE of the HR_6MWT was 5.1% and SEE was 6.6 bpm. The ratio HR_VT1/HR_peak and HR_6MWT/HR_peak from CPET were not significantly different (81%±5% vs. 81%±6%, P=0.85); respectively. There was a high correlation between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (r=0.85, P<0.0001). Finally, the results of the present study demonstrate that there was an acceptable agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT in CAD patients on β-blockers treatment and suggest that HR_6MWT may be useful to prescribe and control aerobic exercise intensity in cardiac rehabilitation programs.

Keywords: Heart rate, Ventilatory threshold, 6-Minute walk test, Cardiac rehabilitation, Coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases are the predominant cause of death worldwide and coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common type of heart disease, accounting for 42.6% of all deaths in the United States of America (Virani et al., 2020). An essential component of contemporary care for patients with CAD is the promotion of a healthy lifestyle and control of cardiovascular risk factors (Knuuti et al., 2020). Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs promote a reduction in mortality rates, decrease the risk of rehospitalization, and improve the quality of life of patients with CAD (Anderson et al., 2016; Dunlay et al., 2014). In cardiac patients, regular practice of supervised physical exercise requires an individualized prescription to optimize exercise benefits and minimize risks, offering greater safety during training (Carvalho et al., 2020; Fletcher et al., 2013).

In CAD patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation, the recommended aerobic exercise intensity is close to the first ventilatory threshold (VT₁) (Pymer et al., 2020; Tabet et al., 2008; Tan et al., 2017). The VT₁ represents the exercise intensity corresponding to the transition from purely aerobic metabolism to a point where blood lactate begins to rise in the blood but reaches equilibrium (as a result of progressive activation of anaerobic glycolysis, with stable lactate levels of 1.5–2 mmol/L due to an equal lactate rate of appearance vs. rate of disappearance) (Hansen et al., 2021). Regular exercises with intensity equivalent to VT₁ is medically safe (Chaloupka et al., 2005; Tabet et al., 2008), precede the ischemic threshold (Bussotti et al., 2006), elicit significant physiological adaptations (Prado et al., 2016) and clinical benefits (Zheng et al., 2008). However, the use of a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), necessary to VT₁ definition, involves high costs which limit its practical application in most cardiovascular rehabilitation services, mainly in low to middle-income countries. Furthermore, it is known that fewer patients are undergoing a CPET at the entry to cardiac rehabilitation (Brubaker et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2021).

Studies have been investigating alternatives ways to prescribing aerobic exercise in heart diseases patients (Casillas et al., 2013; Casillas et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2016). The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is a well-established method of assessing physical capacity, practical, simple, and low-cost test, used in cardiovascular rehabilitation programs (Bellet et al., 2012; Casillas et al., 2013). Despite the well-known value of the 6MWT to predict cardiorespiratory fitness, little is known about exercise prescription intensity based on 6MWT heart rate (HR_6MWT) in CAD patients on β-blockers treatment (Casillas et al., 2017).

Gayda et al. (2004) showed that VO₂ and heart rate values at the end of 6MWT did not differ from those values obtained during CPET at VT₁. However, in this study, some CAD patients were not on β-blockers treatment. Furthermore, the accuracy of the agreement between HR_6MWT and heart rate at VT₁ (HR_VT1), important for use as a real clinical practice exercise control parameter, was not yet reported. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT in CAD patients on β-blockers treatment. Our hypothesis is that is an acceptable agreement between heart rate from 6MWT and CPET in CAD patients on β-blockers treatment and that HR_6MWT may be useful to prescribe aerobic exercise in cardiac rehabilitation programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

Seventeen patients with CAD under β-blockers treatment were recruited from the institutional phase II cardiovascular rehabilitation program. All participants met at least three inclusion criteria, such as acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exclusion criteria were diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, hemodynamic instability, ventricular arrhythmias, and respiratory, neurological, or musculoskeletal disease. In addition, patients who failed to achieve a maximum respiratory exchange ratio (>1.05) in the CPET were excluded from the analysis (Keteyian et al., 2010). All individuals provided informed written consent, and the study protocol was approved by the University of Passo Fundo institutional research ethics committee (#363/10).

Experimental procedure

Patients were undergone a CPET and after 48 hours to two 6MWTs. The CPET was performed on a treadmill (Master ATL, Inbramed, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil) in a controlled temperature (21°C–23°C) laboratory. Individuals were continuously monitored in electrocardiographic derivations, using the ramp protocol with analysis of expired gases (O₂ and CO₂) in open circuits (Ergo PC Elite software, Micromed, Brasilia, Brazil) (Fletcher et al., 2013). At the beginning of each CPET day, an auto-calibration was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A medium-flow pneumotachograph (10 to 120 liters/min) was used and measurements were collected in fixed time every 20 sec (VO2000, Aerosport MedGraphics, Saint Paul, MN, USA). The VT₁ was determined by the ventilatory technique identifying the lower points of the oxygen ventilatory equivalent (VE/VO₂) and the expired fraction of O₂ before these values began to rise, while the ventilatory equivalent of carbon dioxide (VE/VCO₂) and the expired CO₂ fraction remained stable (Mezzani et al., 2009). The highest oxygen uptake observed in the last 40 sec of the exercise was defined as VO_2peak (Fletcher et al., 2013). The heart rate at the first ventilatory threshold (HR_VT1) was calculated as the average of 40 sec and heart rate response at the first ventilatory threshold (HRR_VT1) was calculated as HR_VT1 minus HR at rest. The age-predicted maximal HR was derived from the prediction equations HR_max=(208–0.7×age) in men and HR_max= (206–0.88×age) in women (Fletcher et al., 2013). In addition, we evaluated the HR response to incremental CPET.

The 6MWT was performed following the guidelines established by the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society by trained evaluators (Holland et al., 2014). Patients walked as far as possible for six minutes in a 30-m-long flat lane, with standardized incentives. Two tests were performed with an interval of 60 min and the longest covered distance test was used for analysis (Bellet et al., 2012; Holland et al., 2014). During the 6MWT, all patients used the HR monitor (Polar S810i, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland) that continuously showed the HR throughout the 6-min test. The highest value of the HR was noted during the last 30 sec of the 6MWT (HR_6MWT) (Morard et al., 2015). Resting HR was assessed while the patients were standing for 60 sec, after a 5-min rest sitting. The HR_6MWT was used to assess the relative intensity of the 6MWT to the maximal HR from CEPT. Heart rate response at the end of the 6MWT (HRR_6MWT) was calculated as HR_6MWT minus HR at rest. The predicted distance was calculated using the formula (equation 1) proposed by (Britto et al., 2013). All tests were performed between 8:00 and 11:00 a.m., at the same place, and followed the same protocol.

Statistical analysis

Data distribution was evaluated by the Shapiro–Wilk test and expressed in mean, standard deviation (SD), and qualitative variables by frequency distribution. Comparisons between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT were performed by paired t-test. Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman analyses were used to evaluate the association and agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT, respectively (Bland and Altman, 1986). Limits of agreement were calculated (mean bias± SD×1.96) for each Bland–Altman assessment. Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) [(HR_VT1–HR_6MWT)/HR_VT1×100] provided a general measurement error for HR_6MWT. In addition, the accuracy of agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT was evaluated by Lin concordance correlation coefficient (r_c) (Lin, 1989) and by the standard error of estimate (SEE) (Sarzynski et al., 2013). We considered an acceptable accuracy of agreement when r_c>0.8 (Gillinov et al., 2017), MAPE within 5% (Navalta et al., 2020) and SEE ≤7 bpm (Oliveira et al., 2016). P values <0.05 were considered significant. Data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA) and IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 19.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Lin concordance correlation coefficient study power analysis was calculated using Power Analysis & Sample Size 2021 (NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, UT, USA). This statistical test uses a one-sided z-test with a 0.15 significance level.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (64.7% men), 61±10 years old, and 29± 5 kg/m² of body mass index were included in the study. Most patients had a diagnosis of MI with primary (53%) or elective (23.5%) PCI, CABG (23.5%), and all patients were under optimal medical treatment. Twelve patients used selective β1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (54±23 mg/day); four patients used the third generation of β-blockers with vasodilatory effect (15±6 mg/day) and one patient used propranolol (160 mg/day). Additional patients’ clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the CPET and the 6MWT results. All patients performed both tests without complications. No statistically significant differences were found between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (103.2± 10.8 bpm vs. 103.6±12.3 bpm, P=0.81). When expressed in percentage of CPET HR_max, HR_VT1/HR_peak and HR_6MWT/HR_peak were not statistically different (81%±5% vs. 81%±6%, P=0.85). On average, HR_6MWT’s MAPE was 5.1%, and SEE was 6.6 bpm. Six patients (35%) showed a difference higher than five bpm between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT.

Bland–Altman analysis of agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT revealed a negative bias of −0.41±6.4 bpm and 95% limits of agreements, −13 to 12.2 bpm (Fig. 1A). Pearson correlation showed a high and significant association between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (r=0.85, P<0.0001). In addition, Lin concordance correlation coefficient provided acceptable agreement (r_c=0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; study power analysis=0.79) (Fig. 1B). These results suggest that HR_6MWT reflects HR_VT1 accurately in CAD patients using β-blockers.

DISCUSSION

The main result of the present study demonstrates an acceptable agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT and, combined with smaller values of the MAPE and SEE, point out that is possible to use HR_6MWT as an equivalent as HR_VT1 to prescribe and monitor the aerobic exercise in CAD patients on β-blockers treatment.

Bland–Altman analysis results indicate the agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT values. Furthermore, the addition of SEE and MAPE to Bland–Altman analysis permitted us to measure the accuracy of agreement between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT. Thus, our results showed that included patients meet the criterion of the acceptable concordance between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (SEE≤7 bpm and MAPE≤5%) (Navalta et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2016). Obtained data intervals are within an acceptable range for training with HR-derived methods (≤8 bpm) (Robergs and Landwehr, 2002). Our results agree and reinforce existent literature. Morard et al. (2015) reported agreement between HR_VT1 in a symptom-limited incremental CPET on a cycle ergometer and HR_6MWT in CAD patients with an acceptable 95% confidence interval of bias from Bland–Altman analysis (−12.3 to 8.1 bpm). Similarly, in patients with chronic heart failure, Oliveira et al. (2016) showed a high correlation between HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT (r=0.81; P<0.0001), with an acceptable SEE of 6.05 bpm. In clinical practice, our results propose the HR_6MWT may be used to individualize and improve aerobic exercise prescriptions particularly to CAD patients under β-blockers treatment. Thus, it is expected that the prescription of more accurate aerobic exercises may enhance the beneficial effects of aerobic training in patients undergoing a cardiac rehabilitation program.

Previous data suggest that adding ~30 bpm to resting HR is a simple way to infer HR_VT1 values when a CPET was not performed (Nemoto et al., 2019). Although our HRR_VT1 values (31±11 bpm) were close to the suggested values, we believe that performing the 6MWT may be a more accurate form of exercise prescription. In addition, the HRR_6MWT was 30±8 bpm and represents 55% of HRR_peak, a moderate aerobic exercise intensity (Hansen et al., 2019; Pelliccia et al., 2021).

The HR_VT1 and HR_6MWT were close to 80% of the CPET HR_peak. This percentage may be considered as moderate to high intensity and is in line with the recommended aerobic training zone (~75% to ~88% HR_peak) reported in two large cohorts of patients with CVD (Díaz-Buschmann et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2019). Furthermore, Díaz-Buschmann et al. (2014) recommend that patients on β-blockers treatment exercise at 80% HR_peak, reinforcing the clinical applicability of our results. Additionally, clinical safety must be considered in exercise prescription in CAD patients. Thus, the founded intensity, ~80% CPET HR_peak, agree with recommended safety limit for aerobic exercise (<90% HR_peak) (Pelliccia et al., 2021).

Although Lin concordance correlation coefficient calculated study power provided acceptable agreement, is possible that this study has limitations inherent to the sample size. Furthermore, as we did not have an equal distribution between the different β-blockers used in CAD treatment the interpretation of the present results must be performed with prudence and may restrict the extrapolation of the results to another evaluated sample. Finally, as both CPET and 6MWT were performed with patients walking, our results are more accurate to this kind of aerobic exercise than the cycle ergometer, or another exercise to lower limbs aerobic exercises.

Our results suggest that the highest heart rate observed during the last 30 sec of the 6MWT seems to be a valid tool to prescribe aerobic exercise intensity with safe at entry in a cardiac rehabilitation program for β-blockers patients. More research should be carried out to evaluate the use of HR_6MWT to control the exercise intensity in the progression of the physical training program in cardiac rehabilitation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest to this article was reported.

REFERENCES

Anderson L, Thompson DR, Oldridge N, Zwisler AD, Rees K, Martin N, Taylor RS. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:CD001800

Bellet RN, Adams L, Morris NR. The 6-minute walk test in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation: validity, reliability and responsiveness: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2012;98:277–286.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;8476:307–310.

Britto RR, Probst VS, de Andrade AF, Samora GA, Hernandes NA, Marinho PE, Karsten M, Pitta F, Parreira VF. Reference equations for the six-minute walk distance based on a Brazilian multicenter study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17:556–563.

Brubaker PH, Ross JH, Joo KC. Contemporary approaches to prescribing exercise in coronary artery disease patients. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2018;12:130–139.

Bussotti M, Apostolo A, Andreini D, Palermo P, Contini M, Agostoni P. Cardiopulmonary evidence of exercise-induced silent ischaemia. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2006;13:249–253.

Carvalho T, Milani M, Ferraz AS, Silveira ADD, Herdy AH, Hossri CAC, Silva CGS, Araújo CGS, Rocco EA, Teixeira JAC, Dourado LOC, Matos LDNJ, Emed LGM, Ritt LEF, Silva MG, Santos MA, Silva MMF, Freitas OGA, Nascimento PMC, Stein R, Meneghelo RS, Serra SM. Brazilian cardiovascular rehabilitation guideline - 2020. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020;114:943–987.

Casillas JM, Gudjoncik A, Gremeaux V, Aulagne J, Besson D, Laroche D. Assessment tools for personalizing training intensity during cardiac rehabilitation: literature review and practical proposals. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;60:43–49.

Casillas JM, Hannequin A, Besson D, Benaïm S, Krawcow C, Laurent Y, Gremeaux V. Walking tests during the exercise training: specific use for the cardiac rehabilitation. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;56:561–575.

Chaloupka V, Elbl L, Nehyba S, Tomaskova I, Jedlicka F. Exercise intensity prescription after myocardial infarction in patients treated with beta-blockers. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005;25:361–365.

Díaz-Buschmann I, Jaureguizar KV, Calero MJ, Aquino RS. Programming exercise intensity in patients on beta-blocker treatment: the importance of choosing an appropriate method. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21:1474–1480.

Dunlay SM, Pack QR, Thomas RJ, Killian JM, Roger VL. Participation in cardiac rehabilitation, readmissions, and death after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 2014;27:538–546.

Fletcher GF, Ades PA, Kligfield P, Arena R, Balady GJ, Bittner VA, Coke LA, Fleg JL, Forman DE, Gerber TC, Gulati M, Madan K, Rhodes J, Thompson PD, Williams MA; American Heart Association Exercise and Prevention Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128:873–934.

Gayda M, Temfemo A, Choquet D, Ahmaïdi S. Cardiorespiratory requirements and reproducibility of the six-minute walk test in elderly patients with coronary artery disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85:1538–1543.

Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, Blackburn G, Phelan D, Gillinov AM, Desai MY. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1697–1703.

Hansen D, Abreu A, Ambrosetti M, Cornelissen V, Gevaert A, Kemps H, Laukkanen JA, Pedretti R, Simonenko M, Wilhelm M, Davos CH, Doehner W, Iliou MC, Kränkel N, Völler H, Piepoli M. Exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation and beyond: why and how: a position statement from the Secondary Prevention and Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;Jun. 2. zwab007 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwab007. [Epub].

Hansen D, Bonné K, Alders T, Hermans A, Copermans K, Swinnen H, Dendale P. Exercise training intensity determination in cardiovascular rehabilitation: should the guidelines be reconsidered? Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26:1921–1928.

Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, Puhan MA, Pepin V, Saey D, McCormack MC, Carlin BW, Sciurba FC, Pitta F, Wagner J, Maclntyre N, Kaminsky DA, Culver BH, Revill SM, Hernandes NA, Andrianopoulos V, Camillo CA, Mitchell KE, Lee AL, Hill CJ, Singh SJ. An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44:1428–1446.

Keteyian SJ, Brawner CA, Ehrman JK, Ivanhoe R, Boehmer JP, Abraham WT; PEERLESS-HF Trial Investigators. Reproducibility of peak oxygen uptake and other cardiopulmonary exercise parameters: implications for clinical trials and clinical practice. Chest. 2010;138:950–955.

Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funk-Brentano C, Prescott E, Storey RF, Deaton C, Cuisset T, Agewall S, Dickstein K, Edvardsen T, Escaned J, Gersh BJ, Svitil P, Gilard M, Hasdai D, Hatala R, Mahfound F, Masip J, Munereto C, Valgimigli M, Achenbach S, Bax JJ; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guideline for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:407–477.

Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45:255–268.

Mezzani A, Agostoni P, Cohen-Solal A, Corrà U, Jegier A, Kouidi E, Mazic S, Meurin P, Piepoli M, Simon A, Laethem CV, Vanhees L. Standards for the use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the functional evaluation of cardiac patients: a report from the Exercise Physiology Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;16:249–267.

Morard MD, Bosquet L, Laroche D, Joussain C, Besson D, Deley G, Gremeaux V. Are first ventilatory threshold and 6-minute walk test heart rate interchangeable? A pilot study in healthy elderlies and cardiac patients. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:92–97.

Navalta JW, Ramirez GG, Maxwell C, Radzak KN, McGinnis GR. Validity and reliability of three commercially available smart sports bras during treadmill walking and running. Sci Rep. 2020;10:7397

Nemoto S, Kasahara Y, Izawa KP, Watanabe S, Yoshizawa K, Takeichi N, Akashi YJ. Effect of carvedilol on heart rate response to cardiopulmonary exercise up to the anaerobic threshold in patients with subacute myocardial infarction. Heart Vessels. 2019;34:957–964.

Oliveira MF, Zanussi G, Sprovieri B, Lobo DM, Mastrocolla LE, Umeda II, Sperandio PA. Alternatives to aerobic exercise prescription in patients with chronic heart failure. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016;106:97–104.

Pelliccia A, Sharma S, Gati S, Bäck M, Börjesson M, Caselli S, Collet JP, Corrado D, Drezner JA, Halle M, Hansen D, Heidbuchel H, Myers J, Niebauer J, Papadakis M, Piepoli MF, Prescott E, Roos-Hesselink JW, Graham Stuart A, Taylor RS, Thompson PD, Tiberi M, Vanhees L, Wilhelm M; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines on sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:17–96.

Prado DM, Rocco EA, Silva AG, Rocco DF, Pacheco MT, Silva PF, Furlan V. Effects of continuous vs interval exercise training on oxygen uptake efficiency slope in patients with coronary artery disease. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2016;49:e4890

Pymer S, Nichols S, Prosser J, Birkett S, Carroll S, Ingle L. Does exercise prescription based on estimated heart rate training zones exceed the ventilatory anaerobic threshold in patients with coronary heart disease undergoing usual-care cardiovascular rehabilitation? A United Kingdom perspective. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27:579–589.

Robergs RA, Landwehr R. The surprising history of the “HRmax=220-age” equation. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2002;5:1–10.

Sarzynski MA, Rankinen T, Earnest CP, Leon AS, Rao DC, Skinner JS, Bouchard C. Measured maximal heart rates compared to commonly used age-based prediction equations in the Heritage Family Study. Am J Hum Biol. 2013;25:695–701.

Tabet JY, Meurin P, Teboul F, Tartiere JM, Weber H, Renaud N, Driss AB. Determination of exercise training level in coronary artery disease patients on beta blockers. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15:67–72.

Tan SJJ, Allen JC, Tan SY. Determination of ideal target exercise heart rate for cardiac patients suitable for rehabilitation. Clin Cardiol. 2017;40:1008–1012.

Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Delling FN, Djousse L, Elkind MSV, Ferguson JF, Fornage M, Khan SS, Kissela BM, Knutson KL, Kwan TW, Lackland DT, Lewis TT, Lichtman JH, Longenecker CT, Loop MS, Lutsey PL, Martin SS, Matsushita K, Moran AE, Mussolino ME, Perak AM, Rosamond WD, Roth GA, Sampson UKA, Satou GM, Schroeder EB, Shah SH, Shay CM, Spartano NL, Stokes A, Tirschwell DL, VanWagner LB, Tsao CW; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e139–e596.

Zheng H, Luo M, Shen Y, Ma Y, Kang W. Effects of 6 months exercise training on ventricular remodelling and autonomic tone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:776–779.

Fig. 1

Assessment of the agreement between the HR_VT1 and the HR_6MWT for patients with coronary artery disease. (A) Bland–Altman plot shows the difference between HR_VT1 and the HR_6MWT (y-axis). The middle line represents the mean difference between methods and shaded areas present confidence interval limits for the mean (95% confidence interval [CI], −3.7 to 2.9 bpm). The 95% limits of agreement (±1.96 standard deviation [SD]) fall within −13 to 12.2 bpm. (B) Concordance correlation coefficient shows agreement of HR_VT1 with HR_6MWT (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93). HR_6MWT, heart rate at 6th min of 6-min walk test; HR_VT1, heart rate at the first ventilatory threshold; SEE, standard error of estimate; rc, Lin concordance correlation coefficient.

Table 1

Patients’ clinical characteristics (n=17)

Characteristic	Value
Sex, men:women	11:6
Age (yr)	61±10
Body mass index (kg/m²)	29.8±5
Diabetes mellitus	9 (52.9)
Hypertension	11 (64.7)
Obesity	9 (52.9)
Hyperlipidemia	12 (70.5)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

Table 2

Cardiopulmonary exercise test and 6-min walk test (6MWT) results (n=17)

Variable	Value
Cardiopulmonary exercise test
VO_2peak (mL/kg/min)	21.5±5
VO_2VT1 (mL/kg/min)	15.4±3.2
VO_2VT1/VO_2peak (%)	74±7
HR_rest (bpm)	70±9
HR_VT1 (bpm)	103±10
HR_peak (bpm)	127±16
HRR_VT1 (bpm)	31±11
HRR_peak (bpm)	56±14
pMHR (bpm)	159±11
HR_VT1/HR_peak (%)	81±5
RER_peak	1.13±0.09

6-Min walk test
Covered distance (m)	501±109
Covered distance/predicted (%)	92±18
HR_rest (bpm)	72±7
HR_6MWT (bpm)	103±12
HRR_6MWT (bpm)	30±8
HR_6MWT/HR_peak CPET (%)	81±6

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

VO₂, oxygen uptake; HR, heart rate; HR_rest, HR at rest; HR_peak, maximum HR; pMHR, age-predicted maximal HR; VT₁, first ventilatory threshold; HRR, heart rate response; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; CPET, cardiopulmonary exercise test.