Zhongguo Ying Yong Sheng Li Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Jan;37(1):96-103. doi: 10.12047/j.cjap.0091.2021.111.
Objective: Subjects used upper limb (arm dynamometer) and lower limb precision electromagnetic power meter (cycle ergometer) to perform symptom-restricted limit cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Then we analyzed the clinical value of arm ergometer CPET. Methods: The upper limb and lower limb precision electromagnetic power meters were used to complete the CPET in two different days for 6 normal people and 9 chronic patients. We analyzed CPET data, calculated related core indicators, and compared normal subjects and chronic patients to analyze the similarities and differences between upper and lower extremities and their correlations. Results: ①Compared with 9 patients with chronic diseases, there were significant differences in age ((33.2±12.7) vs (53.6±8.5) years) and diagnosis in 6 normal people. ②The Peak HR ((131.0±19.0) vs (153.0±22.0) bpm,P<0.05) of upper limb CPET of 15 subjects were lower than lower limb CPET, but the difference in blood pressure was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The Peak VT ((1.3±0.4) vs (1.8±0.4) L) and Peak VE ((51.4±21.1) vs (67.9±22.1) L/min) of lower limb CPET were significantly higher than that of upper limb (all P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in Peak BF When upper limb CPET was used, EX-time ((6.4±0.6) vs (8.5±1.2) min) was shorter than lower limb CPET; Peak Work Rate((73.2±19.6) vs (158.5±40.3) W/min), Peak VO2 ((1.1±0.4) vs (1.7±0.4) L/min), AT ((0.6±0.2) vs (0.9±0.2) L/min), Peak VO2/HR ((8.6±2.3) vs (10.9±2.6) ml/beat), OUEP (34.7±4.3 vs 39.8±5.3)were lower, and the Lowest VE/VCO2(32.6±3.8 vs 28.7±4.9), VE/VCO2 Slope (33.9±4.3 vs 28.3±6.2)were higher than those of lower limb CPET (all P<0.05). The comparison results of the two subgroups of normal and chronic patients were the same as the holistic comparison results. ③EX-time, Peak HR, Peak BF, Peak VT and Peak VE of upper limb CPET had good correlation with the results of lower limb CPET. Besides, the measured value and percentage of the projected value of Peak Work Rate, the measured value, kilogram weight value of Peak VO2 and AT, and percentage of the projected value of Peak VO2, the measured value of Peak VO2/HR also had good correlation. The measured value of OUEP, the measured value and percentage of the projected value of Lowest VE/VCO2 and VE/VCO2 Slope were also the same, when the other indicators had no significant correlation. Conclusion: As a supplement to lower limb CPET, upper limb CPET is highly feasible and safe for holistic functional status assessment. It provides an important supplement to guide the implementation of the holistic plan of individualized precision exercise, which is worthy of our further exploration.