Use of portable gas analyzers during pediatric field testing

• Published in: Pediatric pulmonology 2020-05, Vol.55 (5), p.1264-1272
• Main Authors: Itaborahy, Bianca Dana Horongozo, Wamosy, Renata Maba Gonçalves, Scalco, Janaina Cristina, Schivinski, Camila Isabel Santos
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: children; exercise; Field study; tests
• ISSN: 8755-6863; 1099-0496
• DOI: 10.1002/ppul.24700

Objective To compare performance and cardiorespiratory responses in field tests performed by healthy children, with and without the use of a portable gas analyzer (PGA), and to analyze the reproducibility of the tests. Method The study included healthy children aged 6 to 14 years old. The sample was divided into children who underwent field tests (modified shuttle walk test [MSWT], 6‐minute walk test [6MWT], and ADL‐Glittre for pediatrics [TGlittre‐P]) without PGA (GS) and children who carried the equipment K4b2—COSMED, Rome, Italy (GK). Results A total of 120 children participated in the study, 31 in the GK (mean age 10.16 ± 1.81 years old) and 89 in GS (mean age 10.1 ± 1.79 years old). The groups did not differ from each other and there was no significant difference in the performance of the 6MWT and MSWT intergroup (P > .05), but the significant alteration in the variables of the cardiorespiratory response was identified. In the TGlittre‐P, the GK completed the test in a shorter time than the GS (2.69 ± 0.38 minutes vs 2.91 ± 0.40 minutes) and both presented alterations in most cardiorespiratory variables. The intragroup reproducibility showed concordance in all tests, and there was no concordance between groups (P > .05). Conclusion The use of PGA had a lower time spent on TGlittre‐P. In the 6MWT and MSWT, there was no difference in cardiorespiratory performance and response with and without the use of PGA. The three field tests were reproducible, but the same test, with and without the use of PGA, did not show agreement.