Background: Field-based walk tests conducted remotely may provide an alternative method to a facility-based assessment of exercise capacity for people with advanced lung disease. This prospective study evaluated the level of agreement in the distance walked between a 6-min walk test (6MWT) and an incremental shuttle walk test performed by using standard in-person procedures and test variations and settings.
Methods: Adults with advanced lung disease underwent 4 study visits: (i) one in-person standard 6MWT (30-m corridor) and one in-person treadmill 6MWT, (ii) a remote 6MWT in a home setting (10-m corridor), (iii) 2 in-person standard incremental shuttle walk tests (10-m corridor), and (iv) a remote incremental shuttle walk test in a home setting (10-m corridor). A medical-grade oximeter measured heart rate and oxygen saturation before, during, and for 2 min after the tests.
Results: Twenty-eight participants were included (23 men [82%]; 64 (57-67) y old; 19 with interstitial lung disease [68%] and 9 with COPD [32%]; and 26 used supplemental oxygen (93%) [exertional [Formula: see text] of 0.46 ± 0.1]). There was no agreement between the tests. Greater walking distances were achieved with standard testing procedures: in-person 6MWT versus treadmill 6MWT (355 ± 68 vs 296 ± 97; P = .001; n = 28), in-person 6MWT versus remote 6MWT (349 ± 68 vs 293 ± 84; P = .001; n = 24), and in-person incremental shuttle walk test versus remote incremental shuttle walk test (216 ± 62 vs 195 ± 63; P = .03; n = 22).
Conclusions: Differences in the distance walked may have resulted from different track lengths, widths, and walking surfaces. This should be considered in test interpretation if tests are repeated under different conditions.
Keywords: Field-based walk tests; 6-minute walk test; Incremental Shuttle Walk Test; lung disease; lung transplantation; pulmonary rehabilitation; telerehabilitation.
Copyright © 2024 by Daedalus Enterprises.