The Chester step test is a reproducible tool to assess exercise capacity and exertional desaturation in post-COVID-19 patients

Many people recovering from an acute episode of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) experience prolonged symptoms. Exercise testing is a feasible and cost-effective option for assessing exercise tolerance, fatigue, and dyspnea related to effort. Being that the Chester step test (CST) is a progressive, su...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Peroy-Badal, Renata, Sevillano-Castaño, Ana, Núñez-Cortés, Rodrigo, García-Fernández, Pablo, Torres Castro, Rodrigo, Vilaro, Jordi, Blanco, Isabel, Gimeno-Santos, Elena
Tipo de documento: artigo
Data de publicação:2022
País:España
Recursos:Universitat Ramon Llull (URL)
Repositório:DAU Arxiu Digital de la Universitat Ramon Llull
OAI Identifier:oai:dau.url.edu:20.500.14342/5179
Acesso em linha:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/5179
https://doi.org/10.3390/ healthcare11010051
Access Level:Acceso aberto
Palavra-chave:COVID-19 (Malaltia)
Chester Step Test (CST)
Rendiment (Esports)
Exercici
Rehabilitació
Descrição
Resumo:Many people recovering from an acute episode of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) experience prolonged symptoms. Exercise testing is a feasible and cost-effective option for assessing exercise tolerance, fatigue, and dyspnea related to effort. Being that the Chester step test (CST) is a progressive, submaximal test for predicting aerobic capacity, it could be a good option to explore. This study aimed to determine the reproducibility of CST for assessing exertional desaturation and exercise capacity in patients post-COVID-19 disease. A cross-sectional study was conducted on post-COVID-19 patients. Two attempts of the CST were performed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement between the two tests. Forty-two symptomatic post-COVID-19 patients were included, the mean age was 53.8 ± 10.3 years, and 52% were female. There was no significant difference between both tests (p = 0.896). Twenty-four percent of participants (10 cases) had a clinically significant decrease in SpO2 at the first assessment, compared to 30.1% (13 cases) at the second, with no significant difference. An ICC of 0.993 (95% CI: 0.987 to 0.996) was obtained for the total number of steps in the CST.