Comparison of the Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot and modified Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot versus Bruce and Cornell exercise protocols Academic Article uri icon

Overview

MeSH Major

  • Exercise Test
  • Myocardial Ischemia

abstract

  • The Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) and modified ACIP treadmill exercise protocols were developed to test patients with coronary artery disease and to linearly increase work load between stages. The physiologic changes that occurred with ACIP and modified ACIP were compared to those with the Bruce and Cornell protocols in 28 normal subjects and 16 men with coronary artery disease. The exercise protocols were randomly assigned over 2 days, and gas exchange data were obtained continuously with each test. In normal subjects, the peak heart rate, systolic blood pressure, peak oxygen consumption rate (VO2) and minute ventilation were similar for the 4 protocols tested, with exercise time shortest for the Bruce protocol in comparison with the ACIP, modified ACIP and Cornell protocols (10.2 +/- 3.1 vs 13.4 +/- 4.9, 13.9 +/- 4.5, and 15.0 +/- 4.2 minutes, respectively; p < 0.001). The difference between predicted and observed VO2 was smallest for the ACIP protocol (37.0 +/- 11.0 vs 35.8 +/- 13.5 ml/kg/min) and greatest for the Bruce protocol (41.1 +/- 11.8 vs 36.7 +/- 15.0 ml/kg/min) in normal subjects, as well as in patients with coronary artery disease (ACIP protocol 26.9 +/- 7.1 vs 22.5 +/- 6.7, and Bruce protocol 29.1 +/- 7 vs 22.6 +/- 5.7 ml/kg/min, respectively). The ratio of VO2 to work rate, expressed as a slope, was similar in normal subjects for the 4 protocols tested. However, in patients with coronary artery disease, the slope was 0.84 and 0.83 for the ACIP and modified ACIP protocols, respectively, versus 0.61 and 0.71 for the Bruce and Cornell protocols, respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

publication date

  • September 15, 1993

Research

keywords

  • Academic Article

Identity

Language

  • eng

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/0002-9149(93)90891-F

PubMed ID

  • 8249851

Additional Document Info

start page

  • 715

end page

  • 20

volume

  • 72

number

  • 9