Raphael Schoch, Jonathan Wagner, Max Niemeyer, Fabienne Bruggisser, Denis Infanger, Justin Carrard, Benedikt Gasser, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Raphael Knaier
{"title":"增量运动试验中不同强度生物阻抗心动图测量的血流动力学参数的可靠性。","authors":"Raphael Schoch, Jonathan Wagner, Max Niemeyer, Fabienne Bruggisser, Denis Infanger, Justin Carrard, Benedikt Gasser, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Raphael Knaier","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2025.1531027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bioimpedance cardiography offers a non-invasive and time-efficient method to measure hemodynamic parameters. Previous studies only investigated its reliability under steady-state conditions and at maximum load but not at ventilatory thresholds (VTs). This is the first study that assesses the reliability of measured hemodynamic parameters at different exercise stages during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) using prespecified strict criteria to assess reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 31 healthy, well-trained adults were analyzed. Each participant completed two CPETs, both following the same ramp protocol, with a 7-day interval between them. Hemodynamic parameters were measured with the PhysioFlow® (Manatec Biomedical, Poissy, France) at characteristic phases and thresholds [VT1, VT2, and peak oxygen uptake (V̇O<sub>2peak</sub>)]. To ensure comparability, the wattage (power) corresponding to the thresholds in Test 1 (P<sub>VT1</sub>, P<sub>VT2</sub>, and P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub>) was used for Test 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output demonstrated good reliability on a group level (mean intraclass correlation >0.75) at both thresholds (0.91, 0.80, and 0.77 at P<sub>VT1</sub>; 0.92, 0.80, and 0.77 at P<sub>VT2</sub>) and at P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub> (0.93, 0.82, and 0.80). For stroke volume at P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub>, both individual differences (-39.0 to 36.9 mL for the women and -39.9 to 45.2 mL for the men) and mean detectable change (17.5 mL) were larger than the <i>a priori</i> defined acceptable ranges of agreement (-3.6 to 3.8 mL for the women and -4.5 to 3.3 mL for the men).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PhysioFlow® reliably measures heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output during CPET on a group level. However, as shown by the Bland-Altman plots, the reliability is too low to be used for individual comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1531027"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12018426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of hemodynamic parameters measured by bioimpedance cardiography at different intensities during incremental exercise testing.\",\"authors\":\"Raphael Schoch, Jonathan Wagner, Max Niemeyer, Fabienne Bruggisser, Denis Infanger, Justin Carrard, Benedikt Gasser, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Raphael Knaier\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcvm.2025.1531027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bioimpedance cardiography offers a non-invasive and time-efficient method to measure hemodynamic parameters. Previous studies only investigated its reliability under steady-state conditions and at maximum load but not at ventilatory thresholds (VTs). This is the first study that assesses the reliability of measured hemodynamic parameters at different exercise stages during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) using prespecified strict criteria to assess reliability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 31 healthy, well-trained adults were analyzed. Each participant completed two CPETs, both following the same ramp protocol, with a 7-day interval between them. Hemodynamic parameters were measured with the PhysioFlow® (Manatec Biomedical, Poissy, France) at characteristic phases and thresholds [VT1, VT2, and peak oxygen uptake (V̇O<sub>2peak</sub>)]. To ensure comparability, the wattage (power) corresponding to the thresholds in Test 1 (P<sub>VT1</sub>, P<sub>VT2</sub>, and P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub>) was used for Test 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output demonstrated good reliability on a group level (mean intraclass correlation >0.75) at both thresholds (0.91, 0.80, and 0.77 at P<sub>VT1</sub>; 0.92, 0.80, and 0.77 at P<sub>VT2</sub>) and at P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub> (0.93, 0.82, and 0.80). For stroke volume at P<sub>V̇O2peak</sub>, both individual differences (-39.0 to 36.9 mL for the women and -39.9 to 45.2 mL for the men) and mean detectable change (17.5 mL) were larger than the <i>a priori</i> defined acceptable ranges of agreement (-3.6 to 3.8 mL for the women and -4.5 to 3.3 mL for the men).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PhysioFlow® reliably measures heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output during CPET on a group level. However, as shown by the Bland-Altman plots, the reliability is too low to be used for individual comparisons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1531027\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12018426/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1531027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1531027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability of hemodynamic parameters measured by bioimpedance cardiography at different intensities during incremental exercise testing.
Background: Bioimpedance cardiography offers a non-invasive and time-efficient method to measure hemodynamic parameters. Previous studies only investigated its reliability under steady-state conditions and at maximum load but not at ventilatory thresholds (VTs). This is the first study that assesses the reliability of measured hemodynamic parameters at different exercise stages during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) using prespecified strict criteria to assess reliability.
Methods: Data from 31 healthy, well-trained adults were analyzed. Each participant completed two CPETs, both following the same ramp protocol, with a 7-day interval between them. Hemodynamic parameters were measured with the PhysioFlow® (Manatec Biomedical, Poissy, France) at characteristic phases and thresholds [VT1, VT2, and peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak)]. To ensure comparability, the wattage (power) corresponding to the thresholds in Test 1 (PVT1, PVT2, and PV̇O2peak) was used for Test 2.
Results: Heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output demonstrated good reliability on a group level (mean intraclass correlation >0.75) at both thresholds (0.91, 0.80, and 0.77 at PVT1; 0.92, 0.80, and 0.77 at PVT2) and at PV̇O2peak (0.93, 0.82, and 0.80). For stroke volume at PV̇O2peak, both individual differences (-39.0 to 36.9 mL for the women and -39.9 to 45.2 mL for the men) and mean detectable change (17.5 mL) were larger than the a priori defined acceptable ranges of agreement (-3.6 to 3.8 mL for the women and -4.5 to 3.3 mL for the men).
Conclusion: The PhysioFlow® reliably measures heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output during CPET on a group level. However, as shown by the Bland-Altman plots, the reliability is too low to be used for individual comparisons.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers?
At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.