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

From the authors

P. Palange, S. A. Ward
European Respiratory Journal 2007 29: 1066-1067; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019907
P. Palange
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. A. Ward
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The members of the European Respiratory Society Task Force on Exercise Testing in Clinical Practice have read with interest the letter from J.E. Cotes and J.W. Reed and are of the opinion that any response to the points raised therein should be placed in the context of the purpose of a recently published Task Force 1. As stated in the introduction of this Task Force 1: “The purpose of this document is to present recommendations on the clinical use of exercise testing in patients with cardiopulmonary disease, with particular emphasis on the evidence base for functional evaluation, prognosis and assessment of interventions. While the scope of the document is broad, consideration will focus only on those indices which have demonstrable predictive power”. The key phrase here is “evidence base”, which represents a clear departure from the objectives of the 1997 Task Force 2. In recent years, there has been an accumulating body of evidence across a broad range of chronic lung and heart diseases (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary vascular disease and chronic heart failure (CHF)) from studies using cycle ergometer protocols and field tests. It is upon this collective evidence base that the Task Force has formulated its recommendations for exercise testing in clinical practice.

Furthermore, the Task Force was written with the practicing clinician in mind, to raise awareness of the additional value of measuring exercise tolerance in clinical practice. That is, to “allow resolution of practical issues that often confront the clinician, such as: 1) “When should an evaluation of exercise intolerance be sought?”; 2) “Which particular form of test should be asked for?”; and 3) “What cluster of variables should be selected when evaluating prognosis for a particular disease or the effect of a particular intervention?” 1”. Therefore, it was expressly intended not to provide a high level of technical detail with respect to the design, implementation and interpretation of a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) or a field-based walking test; other documents have done this successfully in the past 2, 3.

We believe that the Task Force report has addressed several of the “new developments” that have been highlighted by J.E. Cotes and J.W. Reed. These include: 1) the differences in patterns of physiological response between cycle ergometer exercise and walking that have been observed in COPD; 2) the influence of lung dynamic hyperinflation on dyspnoeic sensation and exercise intolerance, not only in pulmonary disease but also in heart disease; 3) the impact of particular exercise-based indices in prognostic evaluation, such as the slope of the minute ventilation (V'E)–carbon dioxide output (V'CO2) relationship and the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V'E/ V'CO2) at the lactate threshold during incremental cycle ergometry in CHF patients, and arterial oxygen desaturation during walking tests in patients with ILD; and 4) the utility of high-intensity, constant work-rate “endurance” cycle ergometer protocols for assessing the effects of interventions

Regarding the recommendation that J.E. Cotes and J.W. Reed make concerning terminology, we suggest that there are generic aspects of exercise-test design and analysis that should be common to evaluation of the pulmonary and cardiac patient. The use to which these are subsequently put is, of course, another matter. That is, CPET is a test modality, the fundamental purpose of which is to gradationally stress the physiological systems that have the potential to contribute to exercise intolerance in a patient.

With regard to the comment concerning exercise modality, the Task Force report has clearly addressed the issue of possible differences in the ventilatory and metabolic responses for cycle ergometry and shuttle walking in COPD 4, 5. Furthermore, based on the available literature, the use of walking tests has been recommended for assessing the degree of arterial oxygen desaturation in patients with ILD. However, as treadmill protocols have not yet been used extensively for prognostic evaluation or for the assessment of interventions, the Task Force is of the opinion that it is not possible to formulate evidence-based recommendations for their use in clinical practice at this time.

In response to the issue of which measurements are essential, the Task Force report has clearly indicated those parameters and indices which have demonstrated a particular utility in: 1) functional evaluation, such as peak oxygen uptake (V'O2,peak); 2) prognostic evaluation, such as V'O2,peak and V'E/V'CO2; and 3) the evaluation of interventions, such as endurance time and “iso-time” measurements (e.g. ventilation, inspiratory capacity) during high-intensity, constant work-rate protocols.

With regard to the final point, again the Task Force report clearly states that measurement of the ventilatory response in exercise is an essential part of the functional and prognostic evaluation of patients with chronic lung and heart diseases and, if necessary, should be obtained in specialist centres.

J.E. Cotes and J.W. Reed suggest the use of V'E at an oxygen uptake (V'O2) of 1 L·min−1 (V'E,st) as an appropriate and informative index of what they term the “ventilatory burden” of patients with lung disease. We feel that this deserves comment. This is because it provides what amounts to a single, and arbitrary, value on the profile of the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen (V'E/V'O2), the pattern of which is neither linear nor monotonic during exercise. Some subjects with lung disease (and, of course, normal but sedentary, and especially elderly, subjects) could be below the threshold of metabolic acidosis at a V'O2 of 1 L·min−1, whereas others could be above the threshold. The value of V'E,st could, therefore, disguise important functional differences of V'E response. Using V'CO2 as the frame of reference overcomes many, although not all, of these concerns. The V'E–V'CO2 relationship has been consistently demonstrated to be highly linear up to the respiratory compensation point and consequently, using either its linear characteristics or the minimum value of V'E/V'CO2 (a justifiable physiological index reflecting the onset of respiratory compensation for the metabolic acidosis) is, we contend, more consonant with its physiological determinants.

In conclusion, we would like to thank J.E. Cotes and J.W. Reed for opening up a range of issues for debate that relate to clinical exercise testing. We hope that our responses to those that fall within the scope of the Task Force report are found to be constructive.

    • © 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. ↵
      ERS Task Force on Standardization of Clinical Exercise Testing. Clinical exercise testing with reference to lung diseases: indications, standardisation and interpretation strategies. 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. ↵
      Palange P, Forte S, Onorati P, Manfredi F, Serra P, Carlone S. Ventilatory and metabolic adaptations to cycling and walking in COPD. J Appl Physiol 2000;88:1715–1720.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      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
    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.
    From the authors
    (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
    From the authors
    P. Palange, S. A. Ward
    European Respiratory Journal May 2007, 29 (5) 1066-1067; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019907

    Citation Manager Formats

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

    Share
    From the authors
    P. Palange, S. A. Ward
    European Respiratory Journal May 2007, 29 (5) 1066-1067; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019907
    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