Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice

J. E. Cotes, J. W. Reed
European Respiratory Journal 2007 29: 1064-1066; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006607
J. E. Cotes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. W. Reed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editors:

Congratulations to the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force for updating their classic report on Clinical Exercise Testing 1 on its 10th anniversary. The original report 2 was the first to summarise the collective views on exercise testing of workers in the respiratory field, and the update provides an opportunity for reinterpretation in light of developments since 1997.

These new developments have included: 1) the emergence of evidence that cycle ergometry may not reproduce the respiratory symptoms of chest patients who are not cyclists; 2) an increased interest in the contribution of pattern of breathing to exercise limitation; and 3) a growing impression that ergometry may be beyond the competence of some lung function laboratories. The latter might have contributed to the paucity of material on exercise that was presented at the 2006 ERS Annual Congress.

We are concerned that these and related topics are not addressed adequately in the report, and so make additional suggestions for consideration by the Task Force.

Exercise capacity contributes to the management of both respiratory and cardiac patients and its assessment is an essential component of cardiopulmonary exercise testing 3. However, whilst the equipment, some protocols and a need to identify the affected bodily systems are shared, the requirements of the two disciplines subsequently diverge. Cardiologists rightly focus on indices of cardiac and circulatory function. In the case of exercise there are rigid guidelines and these give the technicians control of the tests. Respiratory physicians can usefully focus on how lungs that are damaged by disease adapt to the challenge of exercise and how the response can be improved. The circumstances of the test are often pragmatic with the patient in control, so the conduct of the test requires a flexible approach; respiratory technicians adjust to this, but some cardiac technicians feel insecure. Thus, the differences between the two types of assessment operate at a number of levels and for optimal results they should be borne in mind, not ignored. The respiratory dimension, which includes daily living as well as exercise limitation, is the remit of “respiratory exercise testing” and we commend this term in preference to “clinical exercise testing”, which glosses over the differences; the latter term is, in this context, essentially nonspecific and has implications for testing disorders outside the thorax.

Apart from for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction there has been no change to the previous recommendation of the ERS and American Thoracic Society that cycle ergometry is the method of choice 2, 3. This mode of exercise has the advantage that the patient is seated, so is accessible and feels secure. The patient can usually perform what is required and the method lends itself to a progressive protocol. In addition, the test occupies a minimum amount of space in the laboratory and is relatively cheap. The case against cycle ergometry is that respiratory patients usually experience breathlessness during walking or mounting stairs, not cycling, which few patients undertake and which uses different muscles. At the end of a symptom-limited cycling test a patient who experiences breathlessness during daily living may give up on account of fatigue 4; this has somewhat different features. As a result, the score for breathlessness during daily living cannot be predicted from that obtained on a cycle ergometer 5. This is despite cycling, on average, being associated with a relatively shallow, more rapid pattern of breathing than walking 6, 7; such a pattern increases the ventilation minute volume 8, 9 so could predispose to breathlessness. Exercise training on a cycle ergometer might be expected to improve performance during cycling, but not necessarily the exercise capacity and quality of life during daily living.

The differences between the responses to cycling and walking do not appear to be in dispute, and have led some laboratories to replace ergometry with timed walking or shuttle tests. Such tests are fine for assessing exercise capacity, but not for exploring mechanisms. For this, the exercise should normally be carried out on a treadmill using a progressive protocol 10, 11 with the end-point determined by the patient (symptom limited). However, a cycle ergometer should be available for those few patients who find a treadmill daunting. The minimal information is of ventilation, including breathing frequency and tidal volume (pattern of breathing), gas exchange, electrocardiography, body muscle and fat and pulse oximetry. The current additional procedures for assessing dynamic hyperinflation 1 may be more appropriate for specialist laboratories. However, hyperinflation during the course of a progressive symptom limited test reduces the ability to inspire and hence the tidal volume. This reduction is usually apparent on a graph relating ventilation to tidal volume 12, 13; such a change might provide sufficient information for routine clinical purposes and this possibility merits investigation.

Breathlessness on exertion during daily living and the associated quality of life are related more closely to an increase in the ventilatory cost of exercise than to impaired lung function 14. This ventilatory burden can be represented by the ventilation at an oxygen uptake of 1.0 L·min−1 (45 mmol·min−1; designated V′E,st) which is the level needed for many daily tasks, including the ability to undertake light work 15. In healthy subjects, the average V′E,st is ∼23–25 L·min−1, but in respiratory patients values >40 L·min−1 are not uncommon; this high ventilatory burden can only be identified by an exercise test. Examples of conditions where high levels may occur are given in the ERS recommendations 1. The differential diagnosis is functional breathing, but in our experience differentiation is possible using the results of an exercise test 16, 17. The report states that an exercise test cannot uniquely affect diagnosis, but this is possibly too modest; in our view the exploration of such cases should be within the scope of a routine lung function laboratory. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease the case for respiratory exercise testing is well established 1 and, since the condition is ubiquitous, the exercise assessment should again be conducted at the district level.

In summary, the mechanisms that underlie an increase in ventilation during daily living can be important for diagnosis and clinical management. They are investigated by what is appropriately described as respiratory exercise testing. This differs from cardio-respiratory exercise testing and clinical exercise testing in that the operators focus both mentally and practically on the respiratory consequences of lung diseases. The assessments should preferably be performed using a treadmill, not a cycle ergometer, and, for clinical purposes, be undertaken at the nearest convenient lung function laboratory. Neglect of these aspects detracts from the report of the Task Force: the recommendations should be updated further.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Palange P, Ward SA, Carlsen K-H, et al. Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice. Eur Respir J 2007;29:185–209.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Clinical exercise testing with reference to lung diseases. indications, standardization and interpretation strategies. ERS Task Force on Standardization of Clinical Exercise Testing. European Respiratory Society. Eur Respir J 1997;10:2662–2689.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians. ATS/ACCP Statement on Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:211–277.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Man WD, Soliman MG, Gearing J, et al. Symptoms and quadriceps fatigue after walking and cycling in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:562–567.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Oga T, Nishimura K, Tsukino M, et al. Dyspnoea with activities of daily living versus peak dyspnoea during exercise in male patients with COPD. Respir Med 2006;100:965–971.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Thorsen E. Exercise mode affects the relationship between tidal volume and ventilation. Modelling of the response. Eur Respir J 1994;7: Suppl. 18 198s
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    7. ↵
      Elliott C. The effects of externally applied breathing resistances. PhD Thesis. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1998
    8. ↵
      Otis AB. The work of breathing. In: Fenn WO, Rahn H, eds. American Physiological Society Handbook of Physiology. Section 3: Respiration. Washington, American Physiological Society, 1964; pp. 463–476
    9. ↵
      Cotes JE, Reed JW. A new model for describing ventilation during submaximal exercise in healthy men and men with chronic lung disease. Proc Physiol Soc 2006;3:C39
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      Porszasz J, Casaburi R, Somfay A, et al. A treadmill ramp protocol using simultaneous changes in speed and grade. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1596–1603.
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      Cotes JE, Chinn DJ, Miller MR. Exercise testing. interpretation, including reference values. In: Cotes JE, Chinn DJ, Miller MR, eds. Lung Function: Physiology, Measurement and Application in Medicine. 6th Edn. Oxford, Blackwell Publications, 2006; p. 422
    12. ↵
      Cotes JE, Chinn DJ, Miller MR. Exercise testing. interpretation, including reference values. In: Cotes JE, Chinn DJ, Miller MR, eds. Lung Function: Physiology, Measurement and Application in Medicine. 6th Edn. Oxford, Blackwell Publications, 2006; p. 431
    13. ↵
      Cotes JE, Johnson GR, McDonald A. Breathing frequency. tidal volume. relationship to breathlessness.. In: Porter R, ed. Breathing: Hering-Breuer Centenary Symposium. London, Churchill, 1970; pp. 297–314
    14. ↵
      Cotes JE, Zejda J, King B. Lung function impairment as a guide to exercise limitation in work-related lung disorders. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1988;137:1089–1093.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      American Thoracic Society. Evaluation of impairment/disability secondary to respiratory disorders. Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;133:1205–1209.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      Cotes JE, Reed JW. Disproportionate shallow breathing during exercise as cause of respiratory disability. Eur Respir J 2006;28: Suppl. 50 464s
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      Cotes JE, Reed JW. Exercise ventilation in diffuse pleural disease. Thorax. 2006;61: Suppl. 11 ii129
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 29 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 29 (5)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice
    J. E. Cotes, J. W. Reed
    European Respiratory Journal May 2007, 29 (5) 1064-1066; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006607

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Recommendations on the use of exercise testing in clinical practice
    J. E. Cotes, J. W. Reed
    European Respiratory Journal May 2007, 29 (5) 1064-1066; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006607
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Treatable traits in ILD: why not consider acute exacerbations?
    • Inclusion of lung health outcomes in TB treatment trials
    • Understanding confounding in Mendelian randomisation studies
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society