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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Peroy Badal, Renata, Sevillano Castaño, Ana Isabel, Núñez-Cortés, Rodrigo, García Fernández, Pablo, Torres-Castro, Rodrigo, Vilaró, Jordi, Blanco, Isabel, Gimeno-Santos, Elena
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/73371
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/73371
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:616.98:578.834
796:612
COVID-19
Chester step test
Exercise capacity
Rehabilitation
Fisioterapia (Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología)
3213.11 Fisioterapia
Descripción
Sumario: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 postCOVID-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