Differences between remaining ability and loss of capacity in maximum aerobic impairment

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorNeder, Jose Alberto [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorNery, Luiz Eduardo [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorBagatin, Edileia [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorLucas, Sandra Regina Rodrigues [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorAnção, Meide Silva [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorSue, D.y.
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.contributor.institutionHarbor-UCLA Medical Center
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-14T13:24:44Z
dc.date.available2015-06-14T13:24:44Z
dc.date.issued1998-05-01
dc.description.abstractIn the evaluation of exercise intolerance of patients with respiratory diseases the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) have proposed similar classifications for rating aerobic impairment using maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) normalized for total body weight (ml min-1 kg-1). However, subjects with the same VO2max weight-corrected values may have considerably different losses of aerobic performance (VO2max expressed as % predicted). We have proposed a new, specific method for rating loss of aerobic capacity (VO2max, % predicted) and we have compared the two classifications in a prospective study involving 75 silicotic claimants. Logistic regression analysis showed that the disagreement between rating systems (higher dysfunction by the AMA/ATS classification) was associated with age >50 years (P<0.005) and overweight (P = 0.04). Interestingly, clinical (dyspnea score) and spirometric (FEV1) normality were only associated with the VO2max, % predicted, normal values (P<0.01); therefore, in older and obese subjects the AMA/ATS classification tended to overestimate the aerobic dysfunction. We conclude that in the evaluation of aerobic impairment in patients with respiratory diseases, the loss of aerobic capacity (VO2max, % predicted) should be used instead of the traditional method (remaining aerobic ability, VO2max, in ml min-1 kg-1).en
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.description.affiliationHarbor-UCLA Medical Center
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUNIFESP, EPM, São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceSciELO
dc.format.extent639-646
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X1998000500006
dc.identifier.citationBrazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica, v. 31, n. 5, p. 639-646, 1998.
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/S0100-879X1998000500006
dc.identifier.fileS0100-879X1998000500006.pdf
dc.identifier.issn0100-879X
dc.identifier.scieloS0100-879X1998000500006
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/621
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000073802500006
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherAssociação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectdisability evaluationen
dc.subjectwork capacityen
dc.subjectexercise toleranceen
dc.subjectoxygen consumptionen
dc.subjectoccupational diseasesen
dc.titleDifferences between remaining ability and loss of capacity in maximum aerobic impairmenten
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
S0100-879X1998000500006.pdf
Tamanho:
252.76 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Baixar
Coleções
EPM - Artigos