Indirect Estimation of the First Ventilatory Threshold in Beta-Blocked Cardiac Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Abstract
Aims Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard for determining the first ventilatory threshold (VT1), a key marker for prescribing exercise‑training intensity, but is not routinely available in cardiac rehabilitation. We evaluated the accuracy of commonly used indirect methods for estimating VT1 in beta‑blocker (BB) treated cardiac patients. Methods and results Twenty-six BB treated patients with cardiovascular disease underwent maximal CPET. VT1 estimations derived from the original and modified Karvonen formulas, rating of perceived exertion (Borg scale, target 12–14), and the dyspnea threshold were compared with CPET derived VT1 and VT2. Agreement was assessed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. The original Karvonen formula (= 0.90; 95%CI 0.81-0.95; bias+5 bpm) showed the best agreement with VT1. The dyspnea threshold showed moderate agreement (= 0.86; 95%CI 0.71–0.93; bias +7 bpm), whereas perceived exertion showed poor agreement with VT1 (= 0.73; 95%CI 0.53–0.85; bias +12 bpm). The modified Karvonen formula had the poorest estimation of VT1 (= 0.68; 95%CI 0.50-0.85; bias+16 bpm) but closely matched VT2 (= 0.94; 95%CI 0.87-0.97; bias+0.3 bpm). Conclusion In the absence of CPET, the original Karvonen formula and the dyspnea threshold could be preferred for guiding exercise intensity in BB treated patients, whereas the modified Karvonen formula consistently overestimates VT1 by approximating VT2, making it unsuitable for secure exercise‑intensity prescription.
Related
- Development and diagnostic validation of a recombinant Hexon L1-based indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detecting antibodies to fowl adenovirus serotype 8b in chickens.
- Threshold dose for peanut: Risk characterization based upon diagnostic oral challenge of a series of 286 peanut-allergic individuals
- Ventilatory management of SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure
- Daytime Ventilatory and Blood Acid-Base Responses During Ascent to 3500 m Are Larger and More Rapid in Females Than Males.
- Superior diagnostic efficacy and cost advantage of FibroTouch over CHI3L1 for liver fibrosis in Chinese patients with chronic liver disease
BibTeX
@misc{chemineau2026indirect,
title = {{Indirect Estimation of the First Ventilatory Threshold in Beta-Blocked Cardiac Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study}},
author = {Martin Chemineau and Jimmy Camboulives and Oxana Kunduzova and Jérôme Roncalli and Christophe Hédon and Alain Varray},
howpublished = {HAL},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.51224/sportrxiv.980},
url = {https://ehesp.hal.science/hal-05739029v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Indirect Estimation of the First Ventilatory Threshold in Beta-Blocked Cardiac Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study
AU - Martin Chemineau
AU - Jimmy Camboulives
AU - Oxana Kunduzova
AU - Jérôme Roncalli
AU - Christophe Hédon
AU - Alain Varray
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/24
PB - HAL
DO - 10.51224/sportrxiv.980
UR - https://ehesp.hal.science/hal-05739029v1
AB - Aims Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard for determining the first ventilatory threshold (VT1), a key marker for prescribing exercise‑training intensity, but is not routinely available in cardiac rehabilitation. We evaluated the accuracy of commonly used indirect methods for estimating VT1 in beta‑blocker (BB) treated cardiac patients. Methods and results Twenty-six BB treated patients with cardiovascular disease underwent maximal CPET. VT1 estimations derived from the original and modified Karvonen formulas, rating of perceived exertion (Borg scale, target 12–14), and the dyspnea threshold were compared with CPET derived VT1 and VT2. Agreement was assessed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. The original Karvonen formula (= 0.90; 95%CI 0.81-0.95; bias+5 bpm) showed the best agreement with VT1. The dyspnea threshold showed moderate agreement (= 0.86; 95%CI 0.71–0.93; bias +7 bpm), whereas perceived exertion showed poor agreement with VT1 (= 0.73; 95%CI 0.53–0.85; bias +12 bpm). The modified Karvonen formula had the poorest estimation of VT1 (= 0.68; 95%CI 0.50-0.85; bias+16 bpm) but closely matched VT2 (= 0.94; 95%CI 0.87-0.97; bias+0.3 bpm). Conclusion In the absence of CPET, the original Karvonen formula and the dyspnea threshold could be preferred for guiding exercise intensity in BB treated patients, whereas the modified Karvonen formula consistently overestimates VT1 by approximating VT2, making it unsuitable for secure exercise‑intensity prescription.
ER -