Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Antonio Eduardo Monteiro dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorSantander, Igor Rafael Miranda Ferreirapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Maria Izabel Macedopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorArévalo, Jorge Rene Garciapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorNascimento, João Agnaldopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRitt, Luiz Eduardo Fontelespt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBelli, Karlyse Claudinopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Jorge Pintopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorStein, Ricardopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-17T03:51:40Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2019pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn2359-5647pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/200762pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground: Peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) is an important prognostic marker and its classification helps the cardiologist in the therapeutic decision-making process. The most commonly used cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) classification has not been validated for the Brazilian population. Objective: To elaborate a CRF classification using a Brazilian sample and to compare it with the American Heart Association (AHA), Cooper and UNIFESP classifications. Methods: A total of 6,568 healthy subjects were analyzed through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). They were distributed by sex and the following age groups (years): 7-12, 13-19, 20-79 (per decades) and > 80 years. After measurement of the VO2peak, participants were distributed into quintiles of CRF in very poor, poor, moderate, high and very high (AEMA Table). The CRF classifications by AEMA, AHA, Cooper, and UNIFESP were compared using the Wilcoxon, Kappa and concordance percentages. Results: VO2peak presented an inverse and moderate correlation with age considering both sexes (R = -0.488, p < 0.001). All paired comparisons between CRF classification systems showed differences (p < 0.001) and disagreement percentage - AEMA versus AHA (k = 0.291, 56.7%), AEMA versus Cooper (k = 0.220, 62.4%) and AEMA versus UNIFESP (k = 0.201, 63.9 %). Conclusion: The AEMA table showed important discrepancies in the classification of CRF when compared to other tables widely used in our setting. Because it was obtained from a large sample of the Brazilian population, the AEMA table should be preferred over other classification systems in our population.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofInternational journal of cardiovascular sciences. Rio de Janeiro. vol. 32, no. 4 (2019), p. 343-354pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectExercise testsen
dc.subjectTeste de esforçopt_BR
dc.subjectOxygen consumptionen
dc.subjectConsumo de oxigêniopt_BR
dc.subjectRespiratory function testsen
dc.subjectTestes de função respiratóriapt_BR
dc.subjectExerciseen
dc.subjectExercíciopt_BR
dc.subjectAptidão cardiorrespiratóriapt_BR
dc.subjectCardiorespiratory fitnessen
dc.subjectSaúde da populaçãopt_BR
dc.subjectPopulation healthen
dc.titleClassification system for cardiorespiratory fitness based on a sample of the Brazilian populationpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001104509pt_BR
dc.type.originNacionalpt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples