Open Access

Submaximal cardiopulmonary thresholds on a robotics-assisted tilt table, a cycle and a treadmill: a comparative analysis

  • Jittima Saengsuwan1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Tobias Nef2,
  • Marco Laubacher1 and
  • Kenneth J. Hunt1
BioMedical Engineering OnLine201514:104

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-015-0099-0

Received: 6 July 2015

Accepted: 2 November 2015

Published: 10 November 2015

Abstract

Background

The robotics-assisted tilt table (RATT), including actuators for tilting and cyclical leg movement, is used for rehabilitation of severely disabled neurological patients. Following further engineering development of the system, i.e. the addition of force sensors and visual bio-feedback, patients can actively participate in exercise testing and training on the device. Peak cardiopulmonary performance parameters were previously investigated, but it also important to compare submaximal parameters with standard devices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the RATT for estimation of submaximal exercise thresholds by comparison with a cycle ergometer and a treadmill.

Methods

17 healthy subjects randomly performed six maximal individualized incremental exercise tests, with two tests on each of the three exercise modalities. The ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT) and respiratory compensation point (RCP) were determined from breath-by-breath data.

Results

VAT and RCP on the RATT were lower than the cycle ergometer and the treadmill: oxygen uptake (V′O2) at VAT was [mean (SD)] 1.2 (0.3), 1.5 (0.4) and 1.6 (0.5) L/min, respectively (p < 0.001); V′O2 at RCP was 1.7 (0.4), 2.3 (0.8) and 2.6 (0.9) L/min, respectively (p = 0.001). High correlations for VAT and RCP were found between the RATT vs the cycle ergometer and RATT vs the treadmill (R on the range 0.69–0.80). VAT and RCP demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability for all three devices (ICC from 0.81 to 0.98). Mean differences between the test and retest values on each device were close to zero. The ventilatory equivalent for O2 at VAT for the RATT and cycle ergometer were similar and both were higher than the treadmill. The ventilatory equivalent for CO2 at RCP was similar for all devices. Ventilatory equivalent parameters demonstrated fair-to-excellent reliability and repeatability.

Conclusions

It is feasible to use the RATT for estimation of submaximal exercise thresholds: VAT and RCP on the RATT were lower than the cycle ergometer and the treadmill, but there were high correlations between the RATT vs the cycle ergometer and vs the treadmill. Repeatability and test–retest reliability of all submaximal threshold parameters from the RATT were comparable to those of standard devices.

Keywords

Robotics-assisted tilt table Treadmill Cycle ergometer Submaximal exercise Anaerobic threshold Respiratory compensation point Cardiopulmonary exercise testing

Background

A robotics-assisted tilt table (RATT) provides safe mobilization and intensive sensorimotor stimulation for early rehabilitation of neurological patients by tilting the patient upright and implementing cyclical leg stepping movement. The RATT has separate actuators for tilting the table and for continuously moving the legs during therapy.

The RATT device employed in the present work is a clinical product (Erigo, Hocoma AG, Switzerland), which as standard includes neither measurement of the patient’s work rate, nor does it provide the patient with any form of biofeedback which could be used to guide their active participation. To extend the functionality of the standard RATT, specifically to make it possible to implement formal exercise testing protocols on the device, the RATT was augmented with force sensors and a visual bio-feedback system [1]. The force sensors were inserted under the leg cuffs which attach the patient’s legs to the leg-drive systems. Using additional measurements of the moment arms and the joint angular velocities, the true work rate (in Watts) applied by the patient at the human–machine interface can be calculated in real time. The new visual biofeedback system which was added to the standard device shows the patient a target work rate and, in real time, the actual, measured work rate. The patient is instructed to adapt their volition leg effort, by producing forces into the leg cuffs in synchrony with the cyclical leg motion, in order to follow the work rate target as closely as possible. The target work rate can be chosen arbitrarily, but, for exercise testing purposes, it will be a standardized test protocol such as a constant work rate or incremental ramp. These engineering extensions have enabled severely disabled neurological patients to actively participate in exercise testing and training on the RATT [2, 3].

The augmented RATT device, with the engineering developments outlined above, makes possible for the first time the implementation of standardized exercise testing protocols on a robotics-assisted tilt table for determination of the key parameters of cardiopulmonary status (testing) and to allow optimized prescription of exercise regimes (training). An incremental exercise test, where the patient’s work rate increases linearly over a short time period, delivers two types of parameters: (1) peak cardiopulmonary performance parameters (peak oxygen uptake and peak heart rate), which characterize aerobic capacity, and (2) submaximal exercise thresholds (primarily the ventilatory anaerobic threshold, VAT, and respiratory compensation point, RCP), which serve mainly to allow prescription of training intensity.

We previously reported on peak cardiopulmonary performance parameters (parameter group (1), above) obtained using the augmented RATT, and compared peak responses from the augmented RATT with standard modalities (treadmill and cycle ergometers) [4]. In the present work, we investigate the second major parameter group, (2) above, which can be obtained from incremental exercise testing, viz. the submaximal exercise thresholds VAT and RCP, together with several secondary submaximal parameters. The submaximal parameters from the RATT are directly compared with values obtained in the same subjects using treadmill and cycle ergometers. This investigation is considered clinically relevant because most neurological patients such as those with stroke or multiple sclerosis often terminate exercise testing before their maximal effort is reached. Non-cardiopulmonary factors, such as cognitive problems, muscle weakness or fatigue, are the causes linked to exercise termination in these patients [5, 6].

The submaximal exercise thresholds, i.e. the oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (V′O2@VAT) and at the respiratory compensation point (V′O2@RCP), are important because they can provide crucial information for the assessment of fitness status [79] or for exercise prescription [1012]. They are independent of subjects’ motivation [13] and the duration of the exercise testing protocol [14]. Furthermore, V′O2@VAT is reported to be useful for follow up after an intervention [1517], for the prediction of all-cause postoperative mortality [18] and for the assessment of the severity of heart failure [19].

Other submaximal exercise parameters derived from ventilation (V′E), such as ventilatory equivalent of oxygen (V′E/V′O2), ventilatory equivalent of carbon dioxide (V′E/V′CO2) and the V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope, provide additional information regarding the existence and severity of heart and lung diseases [20, 21]. Additionally, V′E/V′CO2 and the V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope are important predictors for mortality in some groups of patients, e.g. patients with heart failure [22, 23].

Numerous studies reported differences in submaximal exercise parameters on the cycle ergometer and the treadmill [14, 2426], the arm ergometer and the cycle ergometer [27, 28], and the arm ergometer, the cycle ergometer and the treadmill [29]. It has been shown that the submaximal thresholds, e.g. V′O2@VAT, from the arm ergometer were lower than the cycle ergometer, and V′O2@VAT from the cycle ergometer was lower than the treadmill [14, 24, 27, 28]. Regarding submaximal exercise parameters such as V′E/V′CO2 and the V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope, there are conflicting data. Sun et al. reported no mode-dependent difference in V′E/V′CO2 and the V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope [26]; however, Davis et al. found that V′E/V′CO2 and the V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope were higher on the treadmill than the cycle ergometer in women but not in men, and concluded that women demonstrated mode dependency in ventilatory efficiency indices [25].

Since there are no previous data regarding the comparative evaluation of submaximal exercise parameters from the RATT, the aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the RATT for estimation of submaximal exercise thresholds and to compare these with the cycle ergometer and the treadmill.

Methods

Study design and selection criteria

This descriptive study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Swiss Canton of Bern, Switzerland (Reference No. 002/12). All research subjects gave their written informed consent before participating in the study.

Subjects were included in the study if they were 18–50 years and had no history of cardiovascular, pulmonary and musculoskeletal disease that might have interfered with the exercise testing.

Testing procedures

Subjects were randomly assigned to perform six maximal individualized incremental exercise tests, with two tests on each of the three exercise modalities: a treadmill (Venus, h/p/cosmos GmbH, Germany—2 tests), a cycle ergometer (LC7, Monark Exercise AB, Sweden—2 tests) and a robotics-assisted tilt table (RATT; Erigo, Hocoma AG, Switzerland—2 tests) [4]. Each test session was separated by at least 48 h but not more than 7 days and the time of day was controlled. Subjects were advised to avoid strenuous activity for at least 24 h and not to consume food for at least 3 h before the exercise testing [30].

The incremental exercise testing protocol on each device was the same: it started with 3 min of rest, 5 min of warm up, 3 min of rest, and 3 min of unloaded movement before the ramp phase (Fig. 1). Subjects’ work rate increments during the ramp phase were estimated from their predicted maximal oxygen uptake [31] in order that the subjects would reach their maximal exercise performance in 8–12 min [14].
Fig. 1

Incremental exercise testing protocol for all three devices

RATT: The subjects were first secured with a body harness, thigh cuffs and foot straps. Then the RATT was tilted to 70 degrees and the stepping movement was set at 80 steps/min, which is the maximal achievable step rate on this device. The RATT ramp rate was set in the range of 4 to 12 W/min. The subjects were instructed to actively push into the leg cuffs to produce force to follow the target work rate which they could see and compare to their actual work rate in real time (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Robotics-assisted tilt table (RATT) with visual feedback system. The visual feedback screen shows the target work rate and the subject’s work rate. The subject’s work rate was calculated from the forces in the thigh cuffs and the angular velocities

Cycle ergometer: The ramp rate ranged from 12 to 40 W/min. The settings for the seating and pedalling were adjusted for each subject and recorded to ensure the same position in subsequent tests.

Treadmill: During the ramp phase, the work rate increment ranged from 14 to 30 W/min. The work rate was increased linearly every 30 s using combined non-linear changes in speed and slope [32].

Cardiopulmonary data were recorded with a breath-by-breath cardiopulmonary testing system (MetaMax 3B, Cortex Biophysik GmbH, Germany). Before each test, full calibration was performed: pressure calibration; volume calibration with a 3-L syringe; and two-point gas calibration using ambient air and a precision gas mixture (15 % oxygen and 5 % carbon dioxide). Heart rate was recorded using a chest strap (model T34, Polar Electro Oy, Finland). The cardiopulmonary variables were analysed using a 15-breath average on the corresponding Metasoft software (version 2.7.29, Cortex Biophysik GmbH, Germany) [33].

Outcome measures

The VAT and RCP were identified according to the criteria suggested by Binder et al. [11]. The VAT was visually determined using the combination of these approaches: (1) the point of deflection of V′CO2 versus V′O2 (V-slope method) [34]; (2) the point where V′E/V′O2 reaches its minimum or starts to rise without a rise in V′E/V′CO2; and, (3) the point at which partial pressure of end-tidal oxygen tension (PETO2) reaches a minimum or starts to rise without a decline in the partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide tension (PETCO2).

The RCP was visually determined by: (1) the point of deflection of V′E versus V′CO2; (2) the minimal value or nonlinear rise of V′E/V′CO2; and, (3) the point that PETCO2 starts to decline.

The above approaches were used to determine the values of V′O2 and V′E/V′O2 at VAT (V′O2@VAT and V′E/V′O2@VAT), and V′O2 and V′E/V′CO2 at RCP (V′O2@RCP and V′E/V′CO2@RCP). The slope of V′E-vs-V′CO2 from the start of the ramp phase to the RCP was also estimated.

Statistical analysis

Normality of the data was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Data from the second tests on each device were used for the comparative and correlation analyses. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether there were differences of V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP between the three devices. If a statistically significant difference was found, Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison corrections were applied to examine differences between each paired data set.

Linear regression analysis was used to identify the correlation between the values of V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP on the RATT vs cycle ergometer and vs treadmill. The regression equation, correlation coefficient (R), coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of the estimate (SEE) were obtained.

Test–retest reliability of submaximal parameters on each device was analysed using a 2-way mixed single measures (absolute agreement) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3,1) [35]. 0.40 ≤ ICC < 0.75 was considered as fair to good reliability and ICC ≥0.75 was considered excellent reliability [36]. Repeatability was analysed using the Bland and Altman limits of agreement, incorporating mean difference and coefficient of repeatability [37]. The within-subject coefficients of variation were also calculated [38]. The test–retest reliability was based on only nine subjects because of a technical problem in the measurement device detected in the data from the first tests in eight subjects.

All analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 19.0, IBM Corp.).

Results

Seventeen subjects were included (9 male, 8 female). The subjects had the following characteristics [mean (SD))]: age 28.4 (6.4) years, height 171.8 (9.8) cm, body mass 68.1 (12.5) kg and body mass index 22.6 (2.2) kg/m2.

VAT and RCP

The VAT was able to be identified in all subjects on all three devices. The RCP on the RATT was identified in 10 subjects (58.8 %), on the cycle ergometer in 17 subjects (100 %), and on the treadmill in 15 subjects (88.2 %); in 9 subjects, the RCP was identified for all three devices.

The V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP from the RATT were lower than the cycle ergometer and the treadmill: absolute V′O2@VAT from the RATT, the cycle ergometer and the treadmill was [mean (SD)] 1.2 (0.3), 1.5 (0.4) and 1.6 (0.5) L/min, respectively (p < 0.001); V′O2@RCP from the RATT, the cycle ergometer and the treadmill was 1.7 (0.4), 2.3 (0.8) and 2.6 (0.9) L/min, respectively (p = 0.001) (Table 1; Fig. 3). On average, the V′O2@VAT on the RATT was 21.4 % lower than the cycle ergometer V′O2@VAT and 26.1 % lower than the treadmill V′O2@VAT (mean individual differences). The V′O2@RCP on the RATT was 23.9 % lower than the cycle ergometer V′O2@RCP and 30.6 % lower than the treadmill V′O2@RCP (mean individual differences).
Table 1

Submaximal performance parameters from the RATT, cycle and treadmill (VAT: n = 17; RCP: n = 9)

Variables

RATT

Cycle ergometer

Treadmill

P value

V′O2peak absolute (L/min)a,b,c (n = 17)

2.39 ± 0.6

2.82 ± 0.8

3.2 ± 0.9

<0.001

Absolute V′O2@VAT (L/min)a,b (n = 17)

1.16 ± 0.3

1.53 ± 0.4

1.64 ± 0.5

<0.001

Relative V′O2@VAT (mL/kg/min)a,b

17.2 ± 3.6

22.3 ± 4.0

23.8 ± 4.7

<0.001

V′O2@VAT as  % of V′O2peak

49.4 ± 8.8

54.5 ± 5.1

50.6 ± 5.9

0.047

HR at VAT (beats/min)a

114.3 ± 12.9

125.3 ± 10.6

121.7 ± 12.8

0.007

HR at VAT as percent predicted HRpeak (%)a

59.6 ± 6.3

65.4 ± 4.8

63.5 ± 5.9

0.007

Absolute V′O2@RCP (L/min)a,b,c (n = 9)

1.68 ± 0.4

2.26 ± 0.8

2.55 ± 0.9

0.001

Relative V′O2@RCP (mL/kg/min)a,b

24.9 ± 5.1

33.0 ± 7.5

37.3 ± 9.3

<0.001

V′O2@RCP as  % of V′O 2peak a

68.7 ± 10.2

78.5 ± 9.9

79.1 ± 15.6

0.022

HR at RCP (beats/min)a

141.3 ± 17.5

153.2 ± 18.1

158.7 ± 21.9

0.004

HR at RCP as percent predicted HRpeak (%)a

73.6 ± 7.1

79.8 ± 6.9

82.6 ± 9.0

0.003

V′E/V′O 2@VAT b,c (n = 17)

23.6 ± 2.9

23.8 ± 3.0

21.8 ± 2.2

0.002

V′E/V′CO2@RCP (n = 9)

28.9 ± 2.3

27.5 ± 2.8

26.7 ± 2.9

0.022

V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCPa,b (n = 9)

28.4 ± 2.8

26.4 ± 2.4

25.7 ± 2.7

0.002

Data are given as mean ± standard deviation

V′O 2peak peak oxygen uptake, V′O 2 oxygen uptake, VAT ventilatory anaerobic threshold, V′O 2@VAT V′O2 at VAT, HR heart rate, HR peak peak heart rate, RCP respiratory compensation point, V′O 2@RCP V′O2 at RCP, V′E/V′O 2@VAT ventilatory equivalent of oxygen at VAT, V′E/V′CO 2@RCP ventilatory equivalent of carbon dioxide at RCP, V′E-vs-V′CO 2 slope ventilation versus carbon dioxide output slope

a p < 0.05 between the RATT and the cycle ergometer

b p < 0.05 between the RATT and the treadmill

c p < 0.05 between the cycle ergometer and the treadmill

Fig. 3

Box plots for VO2@VAT, VO2@RCP and VO2peak among the 3 devices. Asterisks represent significant differences in each paired data set assessed by Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison corrections

High correlations were found between the RATT vs the cycle ergometer V′O2@VAT (R = 0.70, p < 0.01) and V′O2@RCP (R = 0.80, p < 0.01). The RATT vs the treadmill V′O2@VAT (R = 0.73, p < 0.01) and V′O2@RCP (R = 0.69, p < 0.05) demonstrated similarly high correlations (Fig. 4). The V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP demonstrated excellent test–retest reliability for all three devices (ICC 0.81–0.98). The mean differences between the test and retest values on each device were close to zero (Table 2).
Fig. 4

Linear regression analysis of V′O2@VAT (a, b) and V′O2@RCP (c, d) on the RATT vs the cycle ergometer and the RATT vs the treadmill

Table 2

Test-retest reliability of the submaximal performance parameters from the RATT, cycle and treadmill

 

Overall mean (tests 1 and 2)

MD (95 % LoA)

CoV (%)

ICC (95 % CI)

SEM

%SEM

V′O2@VAT (L/min) (n = 9)

 RATT

1.129

−0.047 (−0.225, 0.131)

5.91

0.92 (0.60–0.98)

0.064

5.67

 Cycle ergometer

1.411

0.082 (−0.459, 0.624)

14.10

0.81 (0.39–0.95)

0.195

13.82

 Treadmill

1.561

−0.015 (−0.290, 0.259)

6.78

0.98 (0.90–1.0)

0.099

6.34

V′O2@RCP (L/min)

 

 RATT (n = 6)

1.649

0.094 (−0.208, 0.395)

6.52

0.92 (0.52–0.99)

0.109

6.61

 Cycle ergometer (n = 8)

2.344

−0.014 (−0.706, 0.678)

8.66

0.87 (0.47–0.97)

0.245

10.45

 Treadmill (n = 7)

2.609

−0.069 (−0.640, 0.502)

7.17

0.95 (0.74–0.99)

0.206

7.90

V′E/V′O2@VAT (n = 9)

 RATT

23.7

−0.01 (−3.5, 3.5)

5.02

0.70 (0.10–0.93)

1.26

5.31

 Cycle ergometer

23.4

1.46 (−4.3, 7.2)

9.78

0.62 (0.05–0.90)

2.07

8.87

 Treadmill

21.7

0.20 (−2.5, 2.9)

4.33

0.74 (0.19–0.94)

0.97

4.47

VE/V′CO2@RCP

 RATT (n = 6)

28.8

0.70 (−1.0, 2.4)

2.48

0.77 (0.03–0.97)

0.62

2.16

 Cycle ergometer (n = 8)

27.7

1.24 (−1.2, 3.6)

4.80

0.90 (0.33–0.98)

0.86

3.10

 Treadmill (n = 7)

26.4

−0.97 (−4.6, 2.6)

5.23

0.71 (0.09–0.94)

1.30

4.92

V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP

 RATT (n = 6)

28.0

0.73 (−4.0, 5.5)

6.00

0.53 (−0.38–0.92)

1.71

6.11

 Cycle ergometer (n = 8)

26.4

2.19 (−2.0, 6.4)

8.26

0.75 (0.04–0.95)

1.52

5.77

 Treadmill (n = 7)

25.4

−1.14 (−4.3, 2.1)

5.13

0.74 (0.12–0.95)

1.15

4.54

MD mean difference, LoA limits of agreement, CoV coefficient of variation, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, CI confidence interval, SEM standard error of the measurement

Other parameters

V′E/V′O2@VAT from the RATT and the cycle ergometer were comparable and both were higher than the treadmill. There were no significant differences in V′E/V′CO2@RCP. The V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP on the RATT was higher than the cycle ergometer and the treadmill (Table 1). V′E/V′O2@VAT, V′E/V′CO2@RCP and V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP had coefficients of variation less than 10 %, the ICC ranged from 0.53 to 0.92 and the repeatability of the parameters, demonstrated by the mean difference, on the RATT and the treadmill were lower than the cycle ergometer (Table 2).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the RATT for estimation of submaximal exercise thresholds by comparison with a cycle ergometer and a treadmill.

Submaximal exercise thresholds

We found that V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP were lower on the RATT than on the cycle and the treadmill. These findings are in line with the differences in V′O2peak found between three devices: the V′O2peak from the RATT was approximately 20 % lower than the cycle V′O2peak and 30 % lower than the treadmill V′O2peak [4]. The lower V′O2 may be explained by the lower muscle mass needed to exercise on the RATT. Additionally, the subjects may be less familiar with the stepping movement on the RATT compared with the movement on the standard devices [4].

High correlations were found between V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP on the RATT vs the treadmill and on the RATT vs the cycle ergometer; however, the correlation coefficients found were lower than those for the V′O2peak between devices (R = 0.94–0.95) [4]. The difference in the level of correlations found may be related to differences in muscle groups and muscle fibre types used during submaximal exercise on each device for each individual [7]. The correlations we found for V′O2@VAT are higher than in studies of arm ergometer vs cycle ergometer in normal subjects (0.60–0.64) [27, 28], which may reflect the closer pattern of movement on the RATT vs the cycle ergometer compared with different muscles used for exercise on the arm ergometer.

We found no pairwise differences in V′O2@VAT as a percentage of V′O2peak among the three devices. The V′O2@VAT (%V′O2peak) found here, 49–55 %, is consistent with some studies on the treadmill or the cycle ergometer (range from 47 to 58 %) [14, 24, 27, 3941], and consistent with the observation that V′O2@VAT (%V′O2peak) rarely exceeds 60 % of V′O2peak [12]. However, other studies reported higher V′O2@VAT (%V′O2peak) (range from 60.4 to 77 %) in normal subjects [19, 42, 43]. The difference between V′O2@VAT (%V′O2peak) among studies may be caused by the difference in methods of identifying V′O2@VAT, the gender, the fitness level and the age distribution of the subjects studied. It was found that V′O2@VAT occurs at a higher percentage of V′O2peak in older subjects, in women and in well-trained subjects [12, 20, 44, 45].

The V′O2@RCP as a percentage of V′O2peak on the RATT was approximately 10 % lower than on the treadmill. In general, data regarding V′O2@RCP (%V′O2peak) are less well established compared to V′O2@VAT (%V′O2peak). The V′O2@RCP (%V′O2peak) identified is in accordance with previous reports [42, 46, 47]. The lower proportion of subjects whose RCP could be identified on the RATT than the cycle or the treadmill may reflect that the RATT is less consistent in provoking cardiorespiratory loads high enough to reach RCP.

We found excellent test–retest reliability in submaximal exercise thresholds (ICC 0.81–0.98). The test–retest reliability of submaximal exercise thresholds obtained from the RATT was comparable to the treadmill and the cycle ergometer. The test–retest reliability for submaximal exercise thresholds found here were slightly lower than for peak oxygen uptake (ICC 0.97–0.99) [4]. The lower test–retest reliability in submaximal exercise thresholds than in peak oxygen uptake has been demonstrated both in normal subjects, and cardiac and pulmonary patients [4850]. One possible explanation is that the submaximal exercise thresholds may be more sensitive to day-to-day biological variability [51, 52].

Other parameters

Although there was a trend toward higher V′E/V′CO2@RCP on the RATT, the pairwise comparison did not reach statistical significance. V′E/V′O2@VAT and V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP on the RATT were higher than on the cycle and the treadmill. A study on the arm ergometer found significant differences in V′E/V′O2@VAT (27.7 and 22.1) and V′E/V′CO2@VAT (29.7 and 25.7) between the arm ergometer and the cycle ergometer, respectively [27]. The lower ventilatory efficiency of the RATT and arm ergometer confirms that mode dependency in ventilatory efficiency indices exists. Therefore, the device used for exercise testing should be considered in the analysis of the ventilatory efficiency data. Apart from the arm ergometer, there are no data regarding the ventilatory efficiency in alternative exercise devices for a comparison of results. Most studies on alternative devices focused more on the peak cardiopulmonary values [53, 54] or submaximal values of V′O2 or heart rate [5557]. Since ventilatory efficiency data could provide additional information regarding the severity and prognosis of some heart or lung diseases [2023], more study of these parameters on the alternative exercise testing devices should be done.

The test–retest reliability of the ventilatory efficiency was fair to excellent. The coefficient of variation was less than 10 %. This is consistent with Davis et al. who found that the test–retest reliability of the V′E/V′CO2 and V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP were high [58].

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, the RCP on the RATT could be identified in only 10/17 subjects. This may be because of the limitation that the RATT can elicit lower cardiopulmonary responses compared to the cycle ergometer and the treadmill in healthy subjects. Since this device is mainly intended to be used in patients with severe disability, this may not be a problem in the target population. Secondly, it cannot be verified whether the differences in submaximal exercise thresholds on each device would be the same for severely disabled neurological patients because it is not possible to implement the exercise tests on standard devices (e.g. treadmill) in severely disabled patients. Finally, the sample size was small, but the results provide preliminary estimates to support further study in target patient populations.

Conclusion

The results suggest that it is feasible to use the RATT for estimation of submaximal exercise thresholds: although V′O2@VAT and V′O2@RCP from the RATT were lower than the cycle ergometer and the treadmill, there were high correlations demonstrated between the RATT vs the cycle ergometer and vs the treadmill; furthermore, the repeatability and test–retest reliability of all submaximal threshold parameters from the RATT were comparable to those of standard devices. There was evidence of mode-dependent differences in V′E/V′O2@VAT and V′E-vs-V′CO2 slope to RCP.

Abbreviations

CI: 

confidence interval

CoV: 

coefficient of variation

HR: 

heart rate

HRpeak

peak heart rate

ICC: 

intraclass correlation coefficient

LoA: 

limits of agreement

MD: 

mean difference

PETCO2

partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide tension

PETO2

partial pressure of end-tidal oxygen tension

R: 

correlation coefficient

R2

coefficient of determination

RATT: 

robotics-assisted tilt table

RCP: 

respiratory compensation point

SEE: 

standard error of the estimate

SEM: 

standard error of measurement

VAT: 

ventilatory anaerobic threshold

V′CO2

carbon dioxide output

V′E: 

minute ventilation

V′E/V′CO2

ventilatory equivalent of carbon dioxide

V′E/V′O2

ventilatory equivalent of oxygen

V′O2

oxygen uptake

V′O2peak

peak oxygen uptake

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the study and to manuscript preparation. JS, KH, TN and ML contributed to the design of the study. JS and KH carried out the assessments and performed the data analysis. JS, TN, ML and KH participated in drafting and critical review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Lukas Bichsel and Matthias Schindelholz developed and implemented the force sensors, work-rate estimation algorithm and the visual feedback system for the RATT.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Engineering and Information Technology, Institute for Rehabilitation and Performance Technology, Bern University of Applied Sciences
(2)
ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, Gerontechnology and Rehabilitation Research Group, University of Bern
(3)
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University

References

  1. Bichsel L, Sommer M, Hunt KJ. Development of a biofeedback system for controlling the patients work rate, heart rate and oxygen uptake during robot-assisted tilt table therapy. Automatisierungstechnik. 2011;59:622–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Laubacher M, Perret C, Hunt KJ. Work-rate-guided exercise testing in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury using a robotics-assisted tilt-table. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:433–8.Google Scholar
  3. Saengsuwan J, Huber C, Schreiber J, Schuster-Amft C, Nef T, Hunt KJ. Feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing and training using a robotics-assisted tilt table in dependent-ambulatory stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Saengsuwan J, Nef T, Laubacher M, Hunt KJ. Comparison of peak cardiopulmonary performance parameters on a robotics-assisted tilt table, a cycle and a treadmill. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0122767.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Tang A, Eng JJ, Tsang TS, Krassioukov AV. Cognition and motor impairment correlates with exercise test performance after stroke. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:622–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Koseoglu BF, Gokkaya NK, Ergun U, Inan L, Yesiltepe E. Cardiopulmonary and metabolic functions, aerobic capacity, fatigue and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 2006;114:261–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. American Thoracic Society; American College of Chest Physicians. ATS/ACCP Statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:211–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Maciejczyk M, Szymura J, Cempla J, Gradek J, Wiecek M, Bawelski M. Respiratory compensation point during incremental test in overweight and normoweight boys: is it useful in assessing aerobic performance? A longitudinal study. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34:56–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Weston SB, Gabbett TJ. Reproducibility of ventilation of thresholds in trained cyclists during ramp cycle exercise. J Sci Med Sport. 2001;4:357–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Mezzani A, Hamm LF, Jones AM, McBride PE, Moholdt T, Stone JA, et al. Aerobic exercise intensity assessment and prescription in cardiac rehabilitation: a joint position statement of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20:442–67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Binder RK, Wonisch M, Corra U, Cohen-Solal A, Vanhees L, Saner H, et al. Methodological approach to the first and second lactate threshold in incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15:726–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer T, Lucia A, Earnest CP, Kindermann W. A conceptual framework for performance diagnosis and training prescription from submaximal gas exchange parameters–theory and application. Int J Sports Med. 2005;26(Suppl 1):S38–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Agostoni P, Bianchi M, Moraschi A, Palermo P, Cattadori G, La Gioia R, et al. Work-rate affects cardiopulmonary exercise test results in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2005;7:498–504.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchfuhrer MJ, Hansen JE, Robinson TE, Sue DY, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ. Optimizing the exercise protocol for cardiopulmonary assessment. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1983;55:1558–64.Google Scholar
  15. Sullivan MJ, Higginbotham MB, Cobb FR. Exercise training in patients with chronic heart failure delays ventilatory anaerobic threshold and improves submaximal exercise performance. Circulation. 1989;79:324–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Nishijima H, Sato I, Matsumura N, Mikami T, Nishida M, Yonezawa K, et al. Ventilatory anaerobic threshold before and after cardiac valve surgery. Jpn Circ J. 1993;57:208–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Ready AE, Quinney HA. Alterations in anaerobic threshold as the result of endurance training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14:292–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson RJ, Davies S, Yates D, Redman J, Stone M. Impaired functional capacity is associated with all-cause mortality after major elective intra-abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:297–303.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsumura N, Nishijima H, Kojima S, Hashimoto F, Minami M, Yasuda H. Determination of anaerobic threshold for assessment of functional state in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 1983;68:360–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Wasserman K, Hansen JE, Sue DY, Casaburi R, Whipp BJ. Principles of exercise testing and interpretation. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Sun XG, Hansen JE, Oudiz RJ, Wasserman K. Exercise pathophysiology in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Circulation. 2001;104:429–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Arena R, Myers J, Aslam SS, Varughese EB, Peberdy MA. Peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope in patients with heart failure: a prognostic comparison. Am Heart J. 2004;147:354–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers J, Arena R, Oliveira RB, Bensimhon D, Hsu L, Chase P, et al. The Lowest VE/VCO2 ratio during exercise as a predictor of outcomes in patients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2009;15:756–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Porszasz J, Casaburi R, Somfay A, Woodhouse LJ, Whipp BJ. A treadmill ramp protocol using simultaneous changes in speed and grade. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1596–603.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis JA, Tyminski TA, Soriano AC, Dorado S, Costello KB, Sorrentino KM, et al. Exercise test mode dependency for ventilatory efficiency in women but not men. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2006;26:72–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun XG, Hansen JE, Garatachea N, Storer TW, Wasserman K. Ventilatory efficiency during exercise in healthy subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1443–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Orr JL, Williamson P, Anderson W, Ross R, McCafferty S, Fettes P. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing: arm crank vs cycle ergometry. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:497–501.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Loughney L, West M, Pintus S, Lythgoe D, Clark E, Jack S, et al. Comparison of oxygen uptake during arm or leg cardiopulmonary exercise testing in vascular surgery patients and control subjects. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:57–65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis JA, Vodak P, Wilmore JH, Vodak J, Kurtz P. Anaerobic threshold and maximal aerobic power for three modes of exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1976;41:544–50.Google Scholar
  30. Pina IL, Balady GJ, Hanson P, Labovitz AJ, Madonna DW, Myers J. Guidelines for clinical exercise testing laboratories. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1995;91:912–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Jurca R, Jackson AS, LaMonte MJ, Morrow JR Jr, Blair SN, Wareham NJ, et al. Assessing cardiorespiratory fitness without performing exercise testing. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:185–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunt KJ. Treadmill control protocols for arbitrary work rate profiles combining simultaneous nonlinear changes in speed and angle. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2008;3:278–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Robergs RA, Dwyer D, Astorino T. Recommendations for improved data processing from expired gas analysis indirect calorimetry. Sports Med. 2010;40:95–111.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Beaver WL, Wasserman K, Whipp BJ. A new method for detecting anaerobic threshold by gas exchange. J Appl Physiol. 1986;60:2020–7.Google Scholar
  35. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40.Google Scholar
  36. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 7th ed. Boston: Brooks/Cole Cengage learning; 2010.Google Scholar
  37. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ. 1996;313:106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Lucia A, Rivero JL, Pérez M, Serrano AL, Calbet JA, Santalla A, et al. Determinants of VO(2) kinetics at high power outputs during a ramp exercise protocol. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:326–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Habedank D, Reindl I, Vietzke G, Bauer U, Sperfeld A, Gläser S, et al. Ventilatory efficiency and exercise tolerance in 101 healthy volunteers. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;77:421–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Nordrehaug JE, Danielsen R, Stangeland L, Rosland GA, Vik-Mo H. Respiratory gas exchange during treadmill exercise testing: reproducibility and comparison of different exercise protocols. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1991;51:655–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Loe H, Steinshamn S, Wisløff U. Cardio-respiratory reference data in 4631 healthy men and women 20–90 years: the HUNT 3 Fitness Study. PLoS One. 2014;9:e113884.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Herdy AH, Uhlendorf D. Reference values for cardiopulmonary exercise testing for sedentary and active men and women. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2011;96:54–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Itoh H, Ajisaka R, Koike A, Makita S, Omiya K, Kato Y, et al. Heart rate and blood pressure response to ramp exercise and exercise capacity in relation to age, gender, and mode of exercise in a healthy population. J Cardiol. 2013;61:71–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Green JM, Crews TR, Bosak AM, Peveler WW. A comparison of respiratory compensation thresholds of anaerobic competitors, aerobic competitors and untrained subjects. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;90:608–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Oussaidene K, Prieur F, Tagougui S, Abaidia A, Matran R, Mucci P. Aerobic fitness influences cerebral oxygenation response to maximal exercise in healthy subjects. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2015;205:53–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Fontana FY, Keir DA, Bellotti C, De Roia GF, Murias JM, Pogliaghi S. Determination of respiratory point compensation in healthy adults: can non-invasive near-infrared spectroscopy help? J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:590–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Garrard CS, Emmons C. The reproducibility of the respiratory responses to maximum exercise. Respiration. 1986;49:94–100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Barron A, Dhutia N, Mayet J, Hughes AD, Francis DP, Wensel R. Test-retest repeatability of cardiopulmonary exercise test variables in patients with cardiac or respiratory disease. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21:445–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Myers J, Goldsmith RL, Keteyian SJ, Brawner CA, Brazil DA, Aldred H, et al. The ventilatory anaerobic threshold in heart failure: a multicenter evaluation of reliability. J Card Fail. 2010;16:76–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Garrard CS, Das R. Sources of error and variability in the determination of anaerobic threshold in healthy humans. Respiration. 1987;51:137–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Kothmann E, Danjoux G, Owen SJ, Parry A, Turley AJ, Batterham AM. Reliability of the anaerobic threshold in cardiopulmonary exercise testing of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:9–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Simmelink EK, Wempe JB, Geertzen JH, Dekker R. Repeatability and validity of the combined arm-leg (Cruiser) ergometer. Int J Rehabil Res. 2009;32:324–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Billinger SA, Loudon JK, Gajewski BJ. Validity of a total body recumbent stepper exercise test to assess cardiorespiratory fitness. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1556–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Billinger SA, VAN Swearingen E, McClain M, Lentz AA, Good MB. Recumbent stepper submaximal exercise test to predict peak oxygen uptake. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1539–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Bulthuis Y, Drossaers-Bakker W, Oosterveld F, van der Palen J, van de Laar M. Arm crank ergometer is reliable and valid for measuring aerobic capacity during submaximal exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:2809–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Saitoh M, Matsunaga A, Kamiya K, Ogura MN, Sakamoto J, Yonezawa R, et al. Comparison of cardiovascular responses between upright and recumbent cycle ergometers in healthy young volunteers performing low-intensity exercise: assessment of reliability of the oxygen uptake calculated by using the ACSM metabolic equation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1024–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Davis JA, Sorrentino KM, Ninness EM, Pham PH, Dorado S, Costello KB. Test-retest reliability for two indices of ventilatory efficiency measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing in healthy men and women. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2006;26:191–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Saengsuwan et al. 2015

Advertisement