Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022;12(1):26-33.
doi: 10.1007/s40140-021-00499-6. Epub 2021 Nov 20.

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Other Tests of Functional Capacity

Affiliations
Review

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Other Tests of Functional Capacity

Marissa Ferguson et al. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2022.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Assessment of functional capacity is a cornerstone of preoperative risk assessment. While subjective clinician assessment of functional capacity is poorly predictive of postoperative outcomes, other objective functional assessment measures may provide more useful information.

Recent findings: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is generally accepted as the gold standard for functional capacity assessment. However, CPET is resource-intensive and not universally available. Simpler objective tests of functional capacity such as the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the 6-min walk test (6MWT) are cheap and efficient. In addition, they predict important postoperative outcomes including death, disability, and myocardial infarction.

Summary: Simple preoperative tests such as the DASI may be useful for routine preoperative assessment. CPET may be helpful to investigate further patients with functional status limitation, and to guide prehabilitation and perioperative shared decision-making in high-risk patients.

Keywords: 6-min walk test; Cardiopulmonary exercise testing; Duke Activity Status Index; Functional status assessment; Perioperative medicine; Risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interestThe authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. International Surgical Outcomes Study group Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(5):601–609. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew316. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, et al. Estimate of the global volume of surgery in 2012: an assessment supporting improved health outcomes. Lancet. 2015;385(Suppl 2):S11. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60806-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bainbridge D, Martin J, Arango M, Cheng D. Perioperative and anaesthetic-related mortality in developed and developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380(9847):1075–1081. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60990-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, James P, Watson D, Hinds C, Rhodes A, et al. Identification and characterisation of the high-risk surgical population in the United Kingdom. Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R81. doi: 10.1186/cc4928. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Story DA, Leslie K, Myles PS, Fink M, Poustie SJ, Forbes A, et al. Complications and mortality in older surgical patients in Australia and New Zealand (the REASON study): a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Anaesthesia. 2010;65(10):1022–1030. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06478.x. - DOI - PubMed