P2501Validation of FRIEND and ACSM equations for cardiorespiratory fitness: comparison to direct measurement in male CAD patients

Abstract Introduction Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. The regression equation of American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) was a preferred method for estimating maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). It is well-known that CRF is overestimated in ACSM equation. Recently, Kokkinos reported more precise equation from the Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database (FRIEND). Both equations were made from western healthy people. Purpose In this study, we compared VO2max estimated by ACSM and FRIEND equations to VO2max directly measured in male coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. Methods We analyzed 103 male CAD patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and who participated in cardiac rehabilitation between June 2015 and December 2018. VO2max was directly measured by the gas exchange analysis during treadmill test with modified Bruce protocol. Exclusive criteria were pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis, malignancy, peripheral artery disease, insufficient cardiopulmonary exercise test and orthopedic injuries. Directly measured VO2max were compared to ACSM and FRIEND equations. Results Age-specific VO2max values, which were directly measured from male CAD patients, were shown in Table. Smaller CRF difference was shown in FRIEND equation than ACSM equation. Compared to the measured value, CRF estimated by ACSM equation was overestimated by 22%, but the one estimated by FRIEND equation had only 2% gap. Figure presents Bland-Altman plots. ACSM equation had the higher bias (5.52ml/kg/min) compared with FRIEND equation (0.200ml/kg/min). Comparison table of VO2max estimated by ACSM and FRIEND equations with directly measured VO2max in male CAD patients Age Number VO2max (ml/kg/min) Measured ACSM % predicted FRIEND % predicted 30–39 4 29.5 ± (6.6) 35.7 ± (6.1) 122.3 ± (8.5) 29.1 ± (4.3) 100.1 ± (8.7) 40–49 20 29.1 ± (5.1) 35.7 ± (5.4) 123.6 ± (11.1) 29.1 ± (3.8) 101.2 ± (9.5) 50–59 32 25.6 ± (4.3) 31.5 ± (5.1) 123.8 ± (10.1) 26.2 ± (3.6) 103.2 ± (8.5) 60–69 27 26.0 ± (5.1) 31.1 ± (2.6) 120.5 ± (12.6) 25.9 ± (4.0) 100.8 ± (10.5) 70–79 18 21.2 ± (6.0) 26.8 ± (5.4) 123.2 ± (14.8) 22.8 ± (3.9) 105.2 ± (12.0) >80 2 25.0 ± (10.1) 22.8 ± (2.6) 97 ± (28.9) 19.9 ± (1.9) 85.1 ± (27.0) Total 103 25.7 ± (5.6) 31.4 ± (6.0) 122.2 ± (12.4) 26.1 ± (4.3) 102.1 ± (10.4) Data are presented as mean ± (standard deviation). Bland-Altman plots Conclusions FRIEND equation can estimate CRF more accurately than ACSM equation, even in Asian patients with CAD.