Is the 1-minute sit-to-stand test a good tool for the evaluation of the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation? Determination of the minimal important difference in COPD
Received 21 June 2016
Accepted for publication 1 August 2016
Published 19 October 2016 Volume 2016:11(1) Pages 2609—2616
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Trija Vaidya,1,2 Claire de Bisschop,2 Marc Beaumont,3,4 Hakima Ouksel,5 Véronique Jean,6 François Dessables,7 Arnaud Chambellan,1,8 On behalf of IRSR RéhaEffort cohort group
1Explorations Fonctionnelles Respiratoires, l’institut du thorax, CHU de Nantes, 2Université de Poitiers, Laboratoire MOVE EA 6314, F-86000 Poitiers, 3Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit, Morlaix Hospital Centre, 4European University of Occidental Brittany, EA3878, Brest, 5Service de Pneumologie, CHU d’Angers, Angers, 6Service de Réhabilitation Respiratoire, Soins de Suite et Rééducation, CHU de Nantes, 7Service de Réhabilitation Respiratoire, la Tourmaline, UGECAM, 8Université de Nantes, Laboratory EA 4334 “Mouvement, Interactions, Performance,” Nantes, France
Background: The 1-minute sit-to-stand (STS) test could be valuable to assess the level of exercise tolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is a need to provide the minimal important difference (MID) of this test in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).
Methods: COPD patients undergoing the 1-minute STS test before PR were included. The test was performed at baseline and the end of PR, as well as the 6-minute walk test, and the quadriceps maximum voluntary contraction (QMVC). Home and community-based programs were conducted as recommended. Responsiveness to PR was determined by the difference in the 1-minute STS test between baseline and the end of PR. The MID was evaluated using distribution and anchor-based methods.
Results: Forty-eight COPD patients were included. At baseline, the significant predictors of the number of 1-minute STS repetitions were the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) (r=0.574; P<10-3), age (r=-0.453; P=0.001), being on long-term oxygen treatment (r=-0.454; P=0.017), and the QMVC (r=0.424; P=0.031). The multivariate analysis explained 75.8% of the variance of 1-minute STS repetitions. The improvement of the 1-minute STS repetitions at the end of PR was 3.8±4.2 (P<10-3). It was mainly correlated with the change in QMVC (r=0.572; P=0.004) and 6MWD (r=0.428; P=0.006). Using the distribution-based analysis, an MID of 1.9 (standard error of measurement method) or 3.1 (standard deviation method) was found. With the 6MWD as anchor, the receiver operating characteristic curve identified the MID for the change in 1-minute STS repetitions at 2.5 (sensibility: 80%, specificity: 60%) with area under curve of 0.716.
Conclusion: The 1-minute STS test is simple and sensitive to measure the efficiency of PR. An improvement of at least three repetitions is consistent with physical benefits after PR.
Keywords: sit-to-stand test, COPD, 6-minute walk test, exercise tolerance, pulmonary rehabilitation
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]