Using a quick timed‐up‐and‐go test to predict surgical risk

Background Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has important implications for post‐operative recovery. The timed‐up‐and‐go (TUG) test is a cheap and simple method to assess a patient's functional performance; although how well TUG correlates with results of a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JCSM rapid communications 2021-07, Vol.4 (2), p.159-165
Hauptverfasser: Boereboom, Catherine L., McGuinness, Rachel B., Herrod, Philip J. J., Blackwell, James E. M., Sian, Tanvir S., Boyd‐Carson, Hannah, Williams, John P., Lund, Jonathan N., Phillips, Bethan E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has important implications for post‐operative recovery. The timed‐up‐and‐go (TUG) test is a cheap and simple method to assess a patient's functional performance; although how well TUG correlates with results of a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), the gold standard measure of CRF is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the correlation between CPET‐derived parameters of CRF and TUG times in a group of older adults. Methods Ninety‐eight independent community dwelling older adults [mean age: 72 years (range: 61–86), mean body mass index: 26.3 ± 3.1 kg/m2, 54 male] were recruited to this study; completing 180 CPET and TUG testing sessions over a 28 month period. The correlation between CPET‐derived CRF parameters and TUG time was assessed, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine clinically useful cut‐off points in TUG time. Results Median TUG time was 7.1 s [interquartile range (IQR): 4–8.5], median VO2 peak was 24.4 mL/kg/min (IQR: 20.2–29.2), and the median anaerobic threshold (AT) was 13.4 mL/kg/min (IQR: 8.6–16.5). There was a statistically significant negative correlation between TUG time and AT (r = −0.317, P = 
ISSN:2617-1619
2617-1619
DOI:10.1002/rco2.36