水牛城脑震荡跑步机测试与生理周期测试的比较:卡尔加里脑震荡循环测试

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Lauren N Miutz, Joel S Burma, Patrice Brassard, Aaron A Phillips, Carolyn A Emery, Jonathan D Smirl
{"title":"水牛城脑震荡跑步机测试与生理周期测试的比较:卡尔加里脑震荡循环测试","authors":"Lauren N Miutz, Joel S Burma, Patrice Brassard, Aaron A Phillips, Carolyn A Emery, Jonathan D Smirl","doi":"10.1177/19417381231217744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sport-related concussions are a complex injury requiring multifaceted assessment, including physical exertion. Currently, concussion testing relies primarily on a treadmill-based protocol for assessing exertion-related symptoms in persons after concussion. This study compared a modified cycle protocol (Calgary Concussion Cycle Test [CCCT]) with the clinically adopted standard, the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT), across multiple physiological parameters.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Treadmill and cycle matched workload protocols would produce similar results for cerebral blood velocity, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>), but heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2</sub>) would be higher on the treadmill than the cycle modality.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Crossover study design.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 17 healthy adults (8 men, 9 women; age, 26 ± 3 years; body mass index, 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) completed the BCTT and CCCT protocols, 7 days apart in a randomized order. During both exertional protocols, the physiological parameters measured were middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCAv), MAP, P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>, VO<sub>2</sub>, and HR. Analysis of variance with effect size computations, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were used to compare exercise tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BCTT and CCCT produced comparable results for both male and female participants with no significant differences for average MCAv, MAP, and P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub> (all <i>P</i> > 0.05; all generalized eta squared [η<sup>2</sup><sub>G</sub>] < 0.02 [negligible]; <i>P</i> value range, 0.29-0.99) between stages. When accounting for exercise stage and modality, VO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> < 0.01) and HR (<i>P</i> < 0.01) were higher on the treadmill compared with the cycle. Aside from the final few stages, all physiology measures displayed good-to-excellent agreeability/variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CCCT was physiologically similar to the BCTT in terms of MCAv, P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>, and MAP; however, HR and VO<sub>2</sub> differed between modalities.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Providing a cycle-based modality to exertional testing after injury mayincrease accessibility to determine symptom thresholds in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":54276,"journal":{"name":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test With a Physiologically Informed Cycle Test: Calgary Concussion Cycle Test.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren N Miutz, Joel S Burma, Patrice Brassard, Aaron A Phillips, Carolyn A Emery, Jonathan D Smirl\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19417381231217744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sport-related concussions are a complex injury requiring multifaceted assessment, including physical exertion. Currently, concussion testing relies primarily on a treadmill-based protocol for assessing exertion-related symptoms in persons after concussion. This study compared a modified cycle protocol (Calgary Concussion Cycle Test [CCCT]) with the clinically adopted standard, the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT), across multiple physiological parameters.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Treadmill and cycle matched workload protocols would produce similar results for cerebral blood velocity, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>), but heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2</sub>) would be higher on the treadmill than the cycle modality.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Crossover study design.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 17 healthy adults (8 men, 9 women; age, 26 ± 3 years; body mass index, 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) completed the BCTT and CCCT protocols, 7 days apart in a randomized order. During both exertional protocols, the physiological parameters measured were middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCAv), MAP, P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>, VO<sub>2</sub>, and HR. Analysis of variance with effect size computations, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were used to compare exercise tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BCTT and CCCT produced comparable results for both male and female participants with no significant differences for average MCAv, MAP, and P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub> (all <i>P</i> > 0.05; all generalized eta squared [η<sup>2</sup><sub>G</sub>] < 0.02 [negligible]; <i>P</i> value range, 0.29-0.99) between stages. When accounting for exercise stage and modality, VO<sub>2</sub> (<i>P</i> < 0.01) and HR (<i>P</i> < 0.01) were higher on the treadmill compared with the cycle. Aside from the final few stages, all physiology measures displayed good-to-excellent agreeability/variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CCCT was physiologically similar to the BCTT in terms of MCAv, P<sub>ET</sub>CO<sub>2</sub>, and MAP; however, HR and VO<sub>2</sub> differed between modalities.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Providing a cycle-based modality to exertional testing after injury mayincrease accessibility to determine symptom thresholds in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346228/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381231217744\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381231217744","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与运动相关的脑震荡是一种复杂的损伤,需要进行多方面的评估,包括体力消耗。目前,脑震荡测试主要依靠基于跑步机的方案来评估脑震荡后患者与体力消耗有关的症状。本研究比较了改良的自行车测试方案(卡尔加里脑震荡自行车测试[CCCT])与临床上采用的标准--布法罗脑震荡跑步机测试(BCTT)--在多个生理参数方面的差异:假设:在脑血流速度、平均动脉压(MAP)和潮气末二氧化碳分压(PETCO2)方面,跑步机和自行车匹配工作量方案将产生相似的结果,但跑步机的心率(HR)和耗氧量(VO2)将高于自行车模式:研究设计:交叉研究设计:证据等级:3 级:共有 17 名健康成年人(8 名男性,9 名女性;年龄,26 ± 3 岁;体重指数,23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m2)按照随机顺序完成了 BCTT 和 CCCT 方案,时间间隔为 7 天。在这两个用力方案中,测量的生理参数包括大脑中动脉平均血流速度 (MCAv)、血压 (MAP)、PETCO2、容氧量 (VO2) 和心率 (HR)。采用方差分析和效应大小计算、变异系数以及95%一致度的Bland-Altman图来比较运动测试:结果:BCTT 和 CCCT 对男性和女性参与者产生了相似的结果,不同阶段的平均 MCAv、MAP 和 PETCO2 无显著差异(所有 P > 0.05;所有广义等方差 [η2G] < 0.02 [可忽略不计];P 值范围为 0.29-0.99)。如果考虑到运动阶段和运动方式,跑步机上的 VO2(P < 0.01)和心率(P < 0.01)均高于自行车。除最后几个阶段外,所有生理指标均显示出良好至极佳的一致性/可变性:结论:就 MCAv、PETCO2 和 MAP 而言,CCCT 在生理方面与 BCTT 相似;但不同模式的 HR 和 VO2 有所差异:临床意义:为伤后用力测试提供一种基于循环的模式可能会增加将来确定症状阈值的可及性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test With a Physiologically Informed Cycle Test: Calgary Concussion Cycle Test.

Background: Sport-related concussions are a complex injury requiring multifaceted assessment, including physical exertion. Currently, concussion testing relies primarily on a treadmill-based protocol for assessing exertion-related symptoms in persons after concussion. This study compared a modified cycle protocol (Calgary Concussion Cycle Test [CCCT]) with the clinically adopted standard, the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT), across multiple physiological parameters.

Hypothesis: Treadmill and cycle matched workload protocols would produce similar results for cerebral blood velocity, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (PETCO2), but heart rate (HR) and oxygen consumption (VO2) would be higher on the treadmill than the cycle modality.

Study design: Crossover study design.

Level of evidence: Level 3.

Methods: A total of 17 healthy adults (8 men, 9 women; age, 26 ± 3 years; body mass index, 23.8 ± 2.7 kg/m2) completed the BCTT and CCCT protocols, 7 days apart in a randomized order. During both exertional protocols, the physiological parameters measured were middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCAv), MAP, PETCO2, VO2, and HR. Analysis of variance with effect size computations, coefficient of variation, and Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement were used to compare exercise tests.

Results: The BCTT and CCCT produced comparable results for both male and female participants with no significant differences for average MCAv, MAP, and PETCO2 (all P > 0.05; all generalized eta squared [η2G] < 0.02 [negligible]; P value range, 0.29-0.99) between stages. When accounting for exercise stage and modality, VO2 (P < 0.01) and HR (P < 0.01) were higher on the treadmill compared with the cycle. Aside from the final few stages, all physiology measures displayed good-to-excellent agreeability/variability.

Conclusion: The CCCT was physiologically similar to the BCTT in terms of MCAv, PETCO2, and MAP; however, HR and VO2 differed between modalities.

Clinical relevance: Providing a cycle-based modality to exertional testing after injury mayincrease accessibility to determine symptom thresholds in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach
Sports Health-A Multidisciplinary Approach Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach is an indispensable resource for all medical professionals involved in the training and care of the competitive or recreational athlete, including primary care physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, physical therapists, athletic trainers and other medical and health care professionals. Published bimonthly, Sports Health is a collaborative publication from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM), the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA), and the Sports Physical Therapy Section (SPTS). The journal publishes review articles, original research articles, case studies, images, short updates, legal briefs, editorials, and letters to the editor. Topics include: -Sports Injury and Treatment -Care of the Athlete -Athlete Rehabilitation -Medical Issues in the Athlete -Surgical Techniques in Sports Medicine -Case Studies in Sports Medicine -Images in Sports Medicine -Legal Issues -Pediatric Athletes -General Sports Trauma -Sports Psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信