From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) (ie, progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms [ECG], hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms) and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: 1) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), 2) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiologic mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and 3) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown etiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making
DOCUMENT
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) [i.e. progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms (ECGs), haemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms] and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: (i) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), (ii) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiological mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and (iii) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown aetiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making.1
DOCUMENT
This systematic review aims to get insight into the feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We will focus on quality (defined as the adherence to international guidelines for methods of CPET) and safety of CPET. Furthermore, we compare the peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak) values of patients with cancer with reference values for healthy persons to put these values into a clinical perspective. A computer aided search with ‘cardiopulmonary exercise testing’ and ‘cancer’ using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, CINAHL® and SPORTDiscus™ was carried out. We included studies in which CPET with continuous gas exchange analysis has been performed prior to a physical exercise programme in adults with cancer. Twenty studies describing 1158 patients were eligible. Reported adherence to international recommendations for CPET varied per item. In most studies, the methods of CPET were not reported in detail. Adverse events occurred in 1% of patients. The percentage V̇O2peak of reference values for healthy persons varied between 65% and 89% for tests before treatment, between 74% and 96% for tests during treatment and between 52% and 117% for tests after treatment. Our results suggest that CPET is feasible and seems to be safe for patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We recommend that standard reporting and quality guidelines should be followed for CPET methods. The decreased V̇O2peak values of patients with cancer indicate that physical exercise should be implemented in their standard care.
DOCUMENT
