Treadmill-based submaximal VO2 estimation in patients with coronary artery disease: can a model derived from healthy individuals be valid?


KARATAŞ L., ORBAK YENİDÜNYA E. S., Demirsoy N.

Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, cilt.55, sa.4, ss.930-939, 2025 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 55 Sayı: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.55730/1300-0144.6046
  • Dergi Adı: Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.930-939
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Cardiac rehabilitation, coronary artery disease, exercise, oxygen uptake, treadmill
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background/aim: Existing treadmill-based VO₂ prediction models may not accurately estimate submaximal VO2 in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), as they are often derived from healthy populations. This study aimed to develop and validate a submaximal VO₂ prediction model derived from healthy individuals and tested for generalizability in CAD patients by incorporating clinically relevant parameters. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted with 101 participants (54 healthy, 47 CAD patients) undergoing cardiopulmonary exercise testing using the modified Bruce protocol. To better represent the submaximal VO₂ reached during exercise, the average VO₂ in the last minute of each stage was used. The model was developed using data from healthy individuals and subsequently validated in the CAD cohort. A linear mixed-effects model was employed to predict VO₂ based on speed, grade, and other confounders, including peak VO2, body weight, and body mass index (BMI). The model’s performance was evaluated and compared with previously published equations using Bland–Altman plots, mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results: The final model, including speed, grade, and peak VO2, achieved an R² of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.86; f2 = 4.88). For CAD patients, the predicted-actual VO₂ difference was –0.05 ± 1.8 mL/kg/min, with MAE and RMSE values of 1.4 and 1.8 mL/kg/min, respectively. The model outperformed reference equations, achieving the highest accuracy (CCC = 0.923) and minimal bias. Incorporating peak VO2 effectively accounted for exercise response differences between healthy individuals and CAD patients. Conclusion: A submaximal VO₂ estimation model derived from healthy individuals and validated in CAD patients demonstrated high accuracy. Incorporating peak VO2 effectively bridged physiological differences, supporting individualized exercise prescriptions in cardiac rehabilitation. However, larger prospective cohorts are warranted to confirm external validity.