Skip to main content

Inter-observer agreement of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation in major abdominal surgery

Abstract

Background

Accurate determination of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) derived parameters is essential to allow for uniform preoperative risk assessment. The objective of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the inter-observer agreement of preoperative CPET-derived variables by comparing a self-preferred approach with a systematic guideline-based approach.

Methods

Twenty-six professionals from multiple centers across the Netherlands interpreted 12 preoperative CPETs of patients scheduled for hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. Outcome parameters of interest were oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (V̇O2VAT) and at peak exercise (V̇O2peak), the slope of the relationship between the minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production (V̇E/V̇CO2-slope), and the oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES). Inter-observer agreement of the self-preferred approach and the guideline-based approach was quantified by means of the intra-class correlation coefficient.

Results

Across the complete cohort, inter-observer agreement intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57–0.93) for V̇O2VAT, 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99) for V̇O2peak, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.75–0.95) for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope when using the self-preferred approach. By using a systematic guideline-based approach, ICCs were 0.88 (95% CI 0.74–0.97) for V̇O2VAT, 0.99 (95% CI 0.99–1.00) for V̇O2peak, 0.97 (95% CI 0.94–0.99) for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope, and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) for the OUES.

Conclusions

Inter-observer agreement of numerical values of CPET-derived parameters can be improved by using a systematic guideline-based approach. Effort-independent variables such as the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and the OUES might be useful to further improve uniformity in preoperative risk assessment in addition to, or in case V̇O2VAT and V̇O2peak are not determinable.

Peer Review reports

Background

There is an increased focus on improving preoperative risk assessment and identification of the high-risk surgical patient scheduled for major surgery in order to guide shared clinical decision-making and patient management [1] by estimating the likelihood of postoperative morbidity and mortality [2]. CPET is an appealing test for preoperative risk assessment, as it provides an objective assessment of the integrative response to exercise of the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and neuromuscular system [3]. Previous research among patients with abdominal cancer has shown that preoperative CPET is an objective and reliable tool for identifying patients at high risk for complications [4,5,6,7].

The most frequently reported preoperative CPET-derived parameters that are used for risk assessment in major abdominal surgery are the oxygen uptake (V̇O2) at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold (V̇O2VAT), the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇E/V̇CO2) at the VAT (V̇E/V̇CO2VAT), and the highest attained V̇O2 at peak exercise (V̇O2peak) [8, 9]. Downsides of these often-used risk assessment parameters are that a maximal effort is required to obtain a valid V̇O2peak, which is, depending on the used definition and population, not accomplished in 25–86% of the participants performing CPET [10, 11]. Methods of determining the submaximal V̇O2VAT are complex [12] and there remains controversy about the underlying physiology of the V̇O2VAT [12]. A previous study has shown that the V̇O2VAT is not determinable in approximately 16% of the preoperative CPETs [13].

The use of submaximal indicators of aerobic capacity that are determinable in all patients could improve uniformity and reduce variety of preoperative risk assessment within and between hospitals. The slope describing the relation between minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production (V̇E/V̇CO2-slope) is a submaximal parameter of ventilatory efficiency that can be used when V̇E/V̇CO2VAT is not determinable [2]. More recently, the oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES) has been introduced as an effort-independent indicator for aerobic capacity in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery [14]. The OUES is well correlated to both V̇O2VAT [14] and V̇O2peak [14, 15].

Although there is some research investigating the inter-observer agreement of the V̇O2VAT and the V̇O2peak in preoperative CPET [13], data on the inter-observer agreement of the preoperative V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and OUES are lacking. In addition, it is unknown whether uniformity in determination of CPET-derived parameters can be improved by using a set of guidelines for CPET interpretation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the inter-observer agreement of determination of preoperative CPET parameters used for preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery by using either a self-preferred or a systematic guideline-based approach.

Methods

Study design

In this observational study, observers representing multiple centers across the Netherlands were asked to interpret 12 preoperative CPETs on two occasions, with at least 4 weeks between each interpretation session. The CPET order was shuffled between the interpretation sessions to prevent observers to be able to recall their previous CPET interpretation. At the first interpretation session, observers interpreted the CPETs using the method(s) they normally use, a self-preferred approach. At the second session, observers used a systematic guideline-based approach for CPET interpretation. The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of Zuyderland (METCZ20200160). Reporting was performed in accordance with the STROBE guidelines for observational studies [16].

Observers

Potential observers were recruited via the Netherlands Association of Sports Medicine (VSG) and a Dutch network of clinical exercise physiologists and were contacted by e-mail with the request to anonymously fill in a short questionnaire regarding CPET experience, CPET training, preferred CPET interpretation methods, and CPET experience in health-compromised populations. Subsequently, potential observers were asked whether they were potentially willing to participate in a study regarding inter-observer agreement of preoperative CPET interpretation. Potential observers were eligible if they were familiar with interpretation of CPETs in health-compromised populations. All participating observers provided informed consent before taking part in this study.

Data collection

Preoperative CPETs performed in patients scheduled for hepatopancreatobiliary surgery at the University Medical Centre Groningen were randomly selected from an existing database. The database consisted of CPETs performed on a cycle ergometer (Monark Exercise LC6, Vansbro, Sweden) in upright position using a breath-by-breath CPET system (Quark CPET, COSMED Srl, Rome, Italy) between March 2019 and March 2020. A detailed description of the CPET protocol can be found elsewhere [17]. The CPET protocol comprised a two-minute resting phase, a three-minute warm-up of unloaded cycling, and an incremental phase with constant work rate increments of 5, 10, or 15 W/min, depending on the patient’s estimated physical fitness level and aimed at reaching a maximal effort within eight to 12 min. Throughout CPET, patients had to maintain a pedaling frequency between 60 and 80 revolutions/min. The protocol continued until the patient’s pedaling frequency fell definitely below 60 revolutions/min, despite strong verbal encouragement. Patient data was anonymized and patient characteristics other than date of birth, sex, and body mass were concealed.

All CPETs were interpreted by the observers using the Omnia software version 1.6.8.0 (COSMED Srl, Rome, Italy) that was installed on a remote computer. Data display settings were set to 10-second average fixed time intervals. At least 1 week before each CPET interpretation session, observers received a short software manual. Before each CPET interpretation session, observers were contacted by telephone with oral instructions. In addition, a member of the research team (RF or AE) was available for assistance during each interpretation session. Observers were able to switch between tests as often as desired. During the first interpretation session, observers interpreted the CPETs by using their self-preferred approach. During the second interpretation session, observers used a systematic guideline-based approach for CPET interpretation. The guideline used in this study (see Additional file 1) was composed based on established CPET guidelines [2, 3, 14, 18,19,20]. Observers were asked to interpret the V̇O2VAT, V̇O2peak, and V̇E/V̇CO2-slope up to the respiratory compensation point on both sessions, whereas they were asked to determine the OUES merely at the second interpretation session as the majority of the observers (73%) appeared not to be familiar with determination of the OUES.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). A sample size calculation was performed using the sampicc function in STATA statistical software. Based on a previous study of Abbott et al., the estimated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.83 for V̇O2VAT and 0.88 for V̇O2peak [13]. It was hypothesized that the ICC values for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and OUES would be markedly higher, as interpretation of these parameters is less complex. Starting from an ICC of 0.85 with an estimated full width of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.11 below and above the point estimate, a minimum of 22 raters was required with a sample of 12 CPETs per rater. Descriptive analyses of the data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or 95% CI, or as median (interquartile range [IQR]), as appropriate based on the Shapiro-Wilk test. Data regarding non-determinable parameters was presented descriptively as percentages relative to the total number of observations per parameter. Inter-observer agreement was estimated for each of the CPETs outcome parameter by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the self-preferred approach and the systematic guideline-based approach separately. A two-way random model, single measures and absolute agreement ICC was calculated to estimate the inter-observer agreement. An ICC of 0 indicates no agreement and 1 indicates perfect agreement. ICC values were interpreted according to the classification of reliability, with values < 0.50, 0.50–0.75, 0.75–0.90, and > 0.90 representing poor, moderate, good, and excellent agreement, respectively [21]. In a primary analysis, ICCs of each CPET parameter separately were calculated for the total group of observers. Thereafter, ICCs were calculated for several subgroups of observers.

Results

A total of 98 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate of 49%), of which 54 responders (55%) agreed to be contacted for further information concerning study participation. Eventually, 27 observers (28%) were willing to participate and provided informed consent. As one observer withdrew before the start of the study, 26 observers (27%) were included in the analyses. There was no loss to follow-up, meaning that all observers completed the 12 CPET observations on both interpretation sessions with a mean ± SD time between interpretation sessions of 66 ± 22 days.

Professions of the participating observers consisted of sports physicians (n = 17), sports medicine residents (n = 5), and clinical exercise physiologists (n = 4). The median [IQR] duration of experience of the observers with CPET interpretation in general and CPET interpretation in health-compromised populations was 7.5 [9.0] and 6.0 [7.0] years, respectively. Observers interpreted 150 [114] CPETs annually (See Table 1).

Table 1 Observer characteristics

The grand mean ± SD of all CPET observations for the complete cohort of observers using the self-preferred and guideline-based approach were respectively 12.1 ± 2.6 and 12.3 ± 2.6 mL/kg/min for V̇O2VAT, 17.4 ± 5.3 and 17.3 ± 5.4 mL/kg/min for V̇O2peak, and 30.7 ± 6.9 and 30.6 ± 7.1 for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope. The grand mean ± SD OUES normalized for body mass was 21.6 ± 6.1 for all observers using the guideline-based approach. There were no statistically significant differences in determined CPET parameters between the two approaches (See Table 2). Mean values for V̇O2VAT, V̇O2peak and the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope as interpreted by the observers using both approaches are presented in Table 2 for each interpreted CPET separately. Figure 1 (graph A, B and C) depicts the observed values of the CPET-derived parameters in each patient during the self-preferred approach. Based on the numerical V̇O2VAT and V̇O2peak values reported by the observers, there was no uniform classification whether a patient was considered a low-risk or high-risk patient in respectively 5 and 2 patients (Fig. 1, graph A and B), as observations cross the line identifying the predefined risk thresholds. When using the systematic guideline-based approach, there was no uniform risk classification based on V̇O2VAT, V̇O2peak, and the OUES in respectively 5, 0, and 1 patients (see Fig. 2, graph A, B, and D).

Table 2 CPET-derived parameters using the self-preferred and guideline-based approach in individual patients
Fig. 1
figure 1

Observed values of the V̇O2VAT (graph A), V̇O2peak (graph B), and V̇E/V̇CO2-slope (graph C) in each patient using the self-preferred approach ordered according to increasing value of the mean. Dots represent values determined by individual observers. Each vertical collection of dots represents an individual patient, in which each patient has a unique color throughout all graphs. Horizontal dotted lines represent known risk assessment thresholds defined as 11.1 mL/kg/min for V̇O2VAT [4] (graph A) and 18.2 mL/kg/min for V̇O2peak [4] (graph B). Error bars represent the SD of the mean. Abbreviations: SD = standard deviation; V̇E/V̇CO2-slope = slope of the relationship between the minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production; V̇O2peak = oxygen uptake at peak exercise; V̇O2VAT = oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold

Fig. 2
figure 2

Observed values of the V̇O2VAT (graph A), V̇o2peak (graph B), V̇E/V̇CO2-slope (graph C), and OUES/kg (graph D) in each patient using the guideline-based approach ordered according to increasing value of the mean. Dots represent values determined by individual observers. Each vertical collection of dots represents an individual patient, in which each patient has a unique color throughout all graphs. Horizontal dotted lines represent known risk assessment thresholds defined as 11.1 mL/kg/min for V̇O2VAT [4] (graph A), 18.2 mL/kg/min for V̇O2peak [4] (graph B), and 20.6 for the OUES/kg [14] (graph D). Error bars represent the SD of the mean. Abbreviations: OUES = oxygen uptake efficiency slope; SD = standard deviation; V̇E/V̇CO2-slope = slope of the relationship between the minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production; V̇O2peak = oxygen uptake at peak exercise; V̇O2VAT = oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold

Inter-observer agreement of preoperative CPET interpretation using a self-preferred approach

When using a self-preferred approach, the maximum number of observations per observed CPET parameter was 312 (26 observers × 12 CPETs). Regarding V̇O2VAT, 11 (4%) observations were missing, as observers reported them as not determinable. For the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope, 26 observations (8.3%) were missing, as two observers (7.8%) were unfamiliar with V̇E/V̇CO2-slope interpretation and therefore did not interpret this parameter. In addition, 2 V̇E/V̇CO2-slope observations (< 1%) were missing without a known reason. No observations were missing for V̇O2peak. See Fig. 3 for an overview of the number of observations per parameter. As depicted in Fig. 4, for the complete cohort of observers, the inter-observer agreement ICC was 0.76 (95% CI 0.57–0.93) for V̇O2VAT, 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99) for V̇O2peak, and 0.86 (95% 0.75–0.95) for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope. Table 3 shows the inter-observer agreement ICC according to profession, the number of observed CPETs annually, the number of years of experience with CPET interpretation, and the number of years of experience with CPET interpretation in health-compromised populations.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Flow diagram showing the number of study participants (observers) and the total number of observations per CPET-derived parameter for the self-preferred and the systematic guideline-based approach

Fig. 4
figure 4

Intra-class correlation coefficient per CPET-derived parameter for the total group of observers. Error bars represent the 95% CI. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; OUES = oxygen uptake efficiency slope; V̇E/V̇CO2-slope = slope of the relation between the minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production; V̇O2peak = oxygen uptake at peak exercise, V̇O2VAT = oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold

Table 3 Inter-observer agreement of CPET-derived parameters in subgroups of observers using the self-preferred and guideline-based approach

Inter-observer agreement of preoperative CPET interpretation using a guideline-based approach

As there was no loss to follow-up of observers, the maximum number of observations when using a guideline-based approach also was 312 observations per CPET parameter. For V̇O2VAT, 13 observations (4%) were missing due to observers reporting the parameter as undeterminable. For V̇O2peak, 78 observations (25%) were missing because observers reported that no valid V̇O2peak could be determined. Regarding the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and OUES, no observations were missing. Figure 3 depicts an overview of the number of observations per parameter. As depicted in Fig. 4, for the complete cohort of observers, the inter-observer agreement ICC for V̇O2VAT was 0.88 (95% CI 0.74–0.97), 0.99 (95% CI 0.99–1.00) for V̇O2peak, 0.97 (95% CI 0.94–0.99) for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope, and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) for the OUES. Table 3 shows the inter-observer agreement ICC categorized according to profession, the number of observed CPETs annually, the number of years of experience with CPET interpretation, and the number of years of experience with CPET interpretation in health-compromised populations. There were no significant differences between categories.

Discussion

The aim of the current study was to determine the inter-observer agreement of preoperative CPET-derived risk assessment parameters by using either a self-preferred approach or a systematic guideline-based approach. When using a self-preferred approach, inter-observer agreement within the whole cohort of observers was moderate-to-good for V̇O2VAT, excellent for V̇O2peak, and good for the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope. Inter-observer agreement when using a guideline-based approach was good for V̇O2VAT and excellent for V̇O2peak, the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope, and the OUES. This implies that inter-observer agreement of CPET-derived parameters might be improved by using a systematic guideline-based approach. These findings are important for improvement of preoperative risk assessment and future clinical guideline development.

High levels of inter-observer agreement are paramount to allow for reliable and uniform preoperative risk assessment to guide shared clinical decision-making and optimize patient management. V̇O2VAT and V̇O2peak are generally considered to be the most important preoperative risk assessment parameters that are consistently and independently associated with postoperative outcomes following major abdominal surgery [8]. The ICC value for the determined V̇O2VAT using the self-preferred approach found in the current study was lower than the previously reported inter-observer agreement ICC value for V̇O VAT in the United Kingdom (0.76 versus 0.83 respectively) [13]. On the contrary, the ICC value for V̇O2peak was higher in the current study compared to the UK study (0.98 versus 0.88, respectively). The lower ICCs for V̇O2VAT found in the current study might be a reflection of the less extensive utilization of preoperative CPET and less uniformity of preoperative CPET interpretation and training in the Netherlands compared to the UK. The latter probably affects the inter-observer agreement of V̇O2VAT to a greater extent than V̇O2peak, as methods for determining V̇O2VAT are more complex than methods for V̇O2peak determination [12].

Besides variation coming from inter-observer (dis) agreement, also other sources that add variability to the reported numerical values of CPET-derived parameters should be considered to improve uniformity of preoperative risk assessment. Other than inter-observer variation, data display methods, the used CPET protocol, measurement error, and within-patient physiological variation, are examples of sources that add variability to CPET-derived parameters. Although the present study showed that inter-observer agreement of V̇O2VAT is good when using a systematic guideline-based approach, variation coming from other sources also needs to be minimized to allow for adequate and reliable preoperative risk assessment. In addition, taking these different sources of variation into account, a V̇O2VAT of 10.9 mL/kg/min (considered a high-risk patient) in reality is probably not much different from an V̇O2VAT of 11.3 mL/kg/min (considered a low-risk patient) [22]. As such, even with a good inter-observer agreement, perhaps less rigid thresholds should be considered for risk assessment as was already proposed by Rose et al. [23].

To improve inter-observer agreement and to allow for adequate and a more uniform preoperative risk assessment, more solid parameters that are identifiable in all patients, such as the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and the OUES might be of added value. The V̇E/V̇CO2-slope is an effort-independent parameter that can be used in absence of the more frequently reported preoperative risk assessment parameter V̇E/V̇CO2VAT [24]. The OUES has been reported to be a valid (sub) maximal measure of aerobic capacity in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, and its predictive ability indicates that it might help discriminate patients at higher risk for postoperative complications [14]. Additionally, the OUES has been found to have excellent test-retest reliability in general surgical patients [25]. The ICC of the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and the OUES in our study was excellent and both parameters were objectively determinable in all patients.

The use of the effort-independent variable OUES in preoperative CPET might complement risk assessment, particularly when a parameter (e.g., V̇O2VAT) is not determinable, when risk assessment is inconclusive, or when a patient is unable and/or unwilling to deliver a maximal effort. Nevertheless, although the OUES has been directly associated with postoperative complications [26] and mortality [15] in lung cancer patients, there is no evidence concerning a direct association of the preoperative OUES with postoperative complications and mortality in abdominal surgery. More research is needed to elucidate the exact association between the OUES and postoperative outcomes.

The current study has some limitations. First, participating observers were not selected randomly. It is possible that observers who are more confident of their CPET interpretation abilities were more willing to participate in the current study. Although it is difficult to estimate the actual effect of this possible selection bias, this could imply that the inter-observer agreement as presented in the current study might be an overestimation of inter-observer agreement in the total population of observers. Second, some observers (38%) were not familiar with the use of the software. Bias due to observers being not familiar with the software was expected to be minimal as the interpretation software that was used is very user-friendly and easy to comprehend. In addition, we accounted for this by providing a manual and an oral introduction before the start of the CPET interpretation sessions. Moreover, observers were free to switch between tests as much as desired, and a member of the study team was available online at all times to provide immediate assistance when needed. Nevertheless, any software-related bias would probably impact both approaches equally.

Strengths of this study consist of a relatively large number of observers that were willing to participate in both interpretation sessions. There was no loss to follow-up between the two interpretation sessions, meaning that all observers who interpreted the CPETs using the self-preferred approach also interpreted the CPETs using the systematic guideline-based approach. Therefore, differences between the two methods were not reliant on differences in participating observers between sessions.

Future research could focus on the influence of other sources of variation, such as data display intervals on the determination of CPET parameters in order to allow for uniform preoperative risk-assessment. In addition, more research is needed to elucidate the role of the OUES regarding preoperative risk assessment and its direct association with postoperative outcome measures.

Conclusions

The inter-observer agreement of V̇O2peak is excellent, regardless of the approach that is used. A systematic guideline-based approach can further improve the inter-observer agreement of the numerical values of CPET-derived parameters used for risk assessment. In patients who are unable to achieve a valid V̇O2peak, or when V̇O2VAT is not determinable, the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and the OUES could be of added value as these are effort-independent parameters with excellent inter-observer agreement that are determinable in all patients. More research is needed to elucidate the exact role of the V̇E/V̇CO2-slope and the OUES within preoperative risk assessment.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

CPET:

Cardiopulmonary exercise test

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

IQR:

Interquartile range

OUES:

Oxygen uptake efficiency slope

V̇E/V̇CO2-slope:

The slope of the relationship between the minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production

V̇O2peak :

Oxygen uptake at peak exercise

V̇O2VAT :

Oxygen uptake at the ventilatory anaerobic threshold

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Moonesinghe SR, Mythen MG, Das P, Rowan KM, Grocott MP. Risk stratification tools for predicting morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing major surgery: qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(4):959–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Levett DZH, Jack S, Swart M, Carlisle J, Wilson J, Snowden C, et al. Perioperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET): consensus clinical guidelines on indications, organization, conduct, and physiological interpretation. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(3):484–500.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American Thoracic S, American College of Chest P. ATS/ACCP statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167(2):211–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. West MA, Asher R, Browning M, Minto G, Swart M, Richardson K, et al. Validation of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing-derived variables to predict in-hospital morbidity after major colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2016;103(6):744–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lai CW, Minto G, Challand CP, Hosie KB, Sneyd JR, Creanor S, et al. Patients’ inability to perform a preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test or demonstrate an anaerobic threshold is associated with inferior outcomes after major colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(4):607–11.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. West MA, Lythgoe D, Barben CP, Noble L, Kemp GJ, Jack S, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise variables are associated with postoperative morbidity after major colonic surgery: a prospective blinded observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(4):665–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. West MA, Parry MG, Lythgoe D, Barben CP, Kemp GJ, Grocott MP, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the prediction of morbidity risk after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2014;101(9):1166–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moran J, Wilson F, Guinan E, McCormick P, Hussey J, Moriarty J. Role of cardiopulmonary exercise testing as a risk-assessment method in patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(2):177–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stubbs DJ, Grimes LA, Ercole A. Performance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the prediction of post-operative complications in non cardiopulmonary surgery: a systematic review. Plos One. 2020;15(2):e0226480.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Santa Mina D, Au D, Papadopoulos E, O’Neill M, Diniz C, Dolan L, et al. Aerobic capacity attainment and reasons for cardiopulmonary exercise test termination in people with cancer: a descriptive, retrospective analysis from a single laboratory. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(9):4285–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berkel AEM, Bongers BC, Kotte H, Weltevreden P, de Jongh FHC, Eijsvogel MMM, et al. Effects of community-based exercise Prehabilitation for patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with high risk for postoperative complications: results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2022;275(2):e299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hopker JG, Jobson SA, Pandit JJ. Controversies in the physiological basis of the ‘anaerobic threshold’ and their implications for clinical cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(2):111–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abbott TEF, Gooneratne M, McNeill J, Lee A, Levett DZH, Grocott MPW, et al. Inter-observer reliability of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation: a cross-sectional study. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(3):475–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bongers BC, Berkel AE, Klaase JM, van Meeteren NL. An evaluation of the validity of the pre-operative oxygen uptake efficiency slope as an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness in elderly patients scheduled for major colorectal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(10):1206–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yakal S, Sofyali S, Ozkan B, Yildiz S, Toker A, Kasikcioglu E. Oxygen uptake efficiency slope and prediction of post-operative morbidity and mortality in patients with lung cancer. Lung. 2018;196(2):255–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berkel AEM, van Wijk L, Bongers BC, Palen J, Buis CI, Reudink M, et al. Study protocol of a single-arm pre-post study to assess the preliminary effectiveness and feasibility of a home-based bimodal prehabilitation program on preoperative aerobic fitness in high-risk patients scheduled for liver or pancreatic resection. Int J Clin Trials. 2020;7(2):103–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bjorke ACH, Raastad T, Berntsen S. Criteria for the determination of maximal oxygen uptake in patients newly diagnosed with cancer: baseline data from the randomized controlled trial of physical training and cancer (Phys-can). Plos One. 2020;15(6):e0234507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dumitrescu D, Rosenkranz S. Graphical data display for clinical cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(Supplement_1):S12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mezzani A, Agostoni P, Cohen-Solal A, Corra U, Jegier A, Kouidi E, et al. Standards for the use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the functional evaluation of cardiac patients: a report from the exercise physiology section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;16(3):249–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Trevethan R. Intraclass correlation coefficients: clearing the air, extending some cautions, and making some requests. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2017;17(2):127–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Older P. Anaerobic threshold, is it a magic number to determine fitness for surgery? Perioper Med (Lond). 2013;2(1):2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rose GA, Davies RG, Davison GW, Adams RA, Williams IM, Lewis MH, et al. The cardiopulmonary exercise test grey zone; optimising fitness stratification by application of critical difference. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(6):1187–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Otto JM, Levett DZH, Grocott MPW. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for preoperative evaluation: what does the future hold? Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2020;10(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Phypers BJ, Robiony-Rogers D, Pickering RM, Garden AL. Test-retest reliability of the oxygen uptake efficiency slope in surgical patients. Anaesthesia. 2011;66(8):659–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kasikcioglu E, Toker A, Tanju S, Arzuman P, Kayserilioglu A, Dilege S, et al. Oxygen uptake kinetics during cardiopulmonary exercise testing and postoperative complications in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2009;66(1):85–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank COSMED Benelux B.V. (Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) for providing a free unrestricted copy of the Omnia software to support this study. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge Frits van Osch PhD, VieCuri Medical Center, Venlo, the Netherlands, and Martijn Bours PhD, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands for their advice regarding statistical analysis.

Funding

Support was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study concept: RF, BB, MJH; Study design: RF, AE, MK, JK, JV, MJH, BB; Data acquisition: RF, AE, MK; Quality control of data and algorithms: RF, AE; Data analysis and interpretation: RF, AE, JV, MJH, BB; Statistical analysis: RF, AE, MJH, BB; Manuscript preparation: RF, AE; Manuscript editing: RF, AE, MK, JK, JV, MJH, BB. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruud F. W. Franssen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee – Zuyderland/Zuyd (Heerlen, the Netherlands) under reference number METCZ20200160 and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

All participants gave written informed consent before inclusion in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Interpretation guidelines. Guideline for systematic interpretation of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Franssen, R.F.W., Eversdijk, A.J.J., Kuikhoven, M. et al. Inter-observer agreement of preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test interpretation in major abdominal surgery. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 131 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01680-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01680-y

Keywords

  • Exercise testing
  • Preoperative risk assessment
  • Prehabilitation
  • Abdominal surgery
  • Preoperative evaluation