Comparison of Maximum Versus Submaximum Exercise Testing in Providing Prognostic Information After Acute Myocardial Infarction and/or Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00342-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Exercise testing after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) provides prognostic information. In many studies submaximum exercise tests performed until a given work load, metabolic equivalents (METs) level, or heart rate were used or patients discontinued the exercise test prematurely because of symptoms. We showed recently that peak oxygen uptake during maximum exercise provides independent prognostic information in patients with coronary artery disease. It is, however, not known whether maximum exercise testing is superior in predicting mortality than testing until a target level. Second, it is unclear which target end point best classifies patients at increased risk. Therefore, the independent relation between mortality and indexes of, respectively, maximum and submaximum exercise capacity, were analyzed in 527 patients, who were tested until exhaustion. To express submaximum exercise capacity dichotomous variables (the ability to reach a target METs level or not), and a continuous variable relative to maximum exercise capacity (the ventilatory anaerobic threshold) were used. After adjustment for significant covariates, peak oxygen uptake was significantly related to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The target level of 5 METs and the ventilatory anaerobic threshold, when expressed in absolute workload, were related to mortality when unadjusted, but after adjustment for age and other confounders significancy was lost. In multiple Cox regression analysis, the prognostic power of peak oxygen uptake remained significant when 5 METs or the anaerobic threshold were forced into the equations. When analyzing the relation of various METs levels with mortality, the 7 METs level was independently related to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and yielded the highest diagnostic accuracy. We conclude that maximum exercise testing is more potent in predicting mortality than the ability to reach a predetermined level of exercise, such as the commonly used 5 METs level or the anaerobic threshold. Otherwise, the use of a higher target level of 7 METs is recommended.

Section snippets

Patient Group

The study group comprised 584 male patients, referred to an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program during the period of August 1978 to March 1988, who had a history of myocardial infarction, had undergone coronary bypass surgery, or both. Before entering the program, 527 of these patients performed a graded maximum exercise test, on average 12.9 ± 2.7 weeks after the event: 297 patients after AMI, 119 after CABG, and 111 patients who had both AMI and CABG. The characteristics of these

Clinical Characteristics of the Patients

The characteristics of the 527 patients at the time of entry into the study are shown in Table 1. Ages ranged from 24 to 74 years. Seventy-one patients complained of dyspnea, and 128 patients reported daily chest pain at the time of the evaluation. All patients performed the exercise test until exhaustion, not limited by angina pectoris. Peak oxygen uptake averaged 1,704 ± 464 ml/min, 22.3 ± 6.0 ml/min/kg, or 6.65 ± 1.8 METs, and peak heart rate was 129 ± 23 beats/min. The respiratory gas

Discussion

Many investigators have used clinical and exercise characteristics to predict prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Exercise capacity, as estimated by total exercise duration or achieved workload during an exercise test, has been claimed to predict cardiovascular mortality.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 In many studies, however, submaximum exercise tests until a given workload or heart rate were used in patients with AMI, possibly hypothecating an

Acknowledgements

The kind cooperation of Jos Willems, MD, PhD,1 and his staff is greatly appreciated.

References (30)

Cited by (4)

  • How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness?

    2005, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
View full text