Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2007 From the authors1 Respiratory Physiopathology Service, Dept of Clinical Medicine, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 2 Institute of Membrane and Systems Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. We thank S. Kostianev and co-workers for their comments relating to the recent European Respiratory Society Task Force document 1. In contrast to the attention given to the utility of recovery indices in athletic populations, there has been little systematic analysis of the recovery phase in a clinical context, with the few existing studies being mostly in patients with chronic heart failure 24. This apart, it is not clear what advantage the inclusion of such indices might provide, particularly in prognostic evaluation and in the evaluation of therapeutic interventions. This lack of a critical mass of experimental data is the main reason why the recovery issue was not addressed in the 2007 Task Force document, which was intended to provide "the evidence-based indications to the use of exercise testing in clinical practice". As S. Kostianev and co-workers state, analysis of the recovery phase could well provide additional information related to the metabolic (and also ventilatory and cardiovascular) demands imposed by exercise 5. While some "new" physiological concepts relating to issues such as pulmonary gas exchange kinetics and the powerduration relationship were included in the online supplement, we nonetheless recognise that the recovery phase in patients with ventilatory and cardiac diseases would benefit from further investigation. REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||