Comparison of graded versus constant treadmill test protocols for quantifying intermittent claudication

Abstract

The standard method for quantifying the symptoms of intermittent claudication is by using treadmill walking distance. It has recently been suggested that a graded exercise test is much more reproducible than a constant load exercise test. Graded protocols have also been claimed to abolish the placebo effect that has been reported with the constant load test. The reproducibility of absolute claudication distance (ACD) and initial claudication distance (ICD) using a constant load was compared to the graded load treadmill protocol. Fourteen patients (mean age 66 years) with varying severity of stable intermittent claudication were tested using a constant toad (3.2 km/h, 10% gradient) and a graded load (3.2 km/h, 0% gradient increasing by 3.5% every 3 min). Patients were tested twice using each protocol in a random sequence, with a minimum 2 day interval between visits. Intra-class correlation coefficient (R) with a constant load protocol for ICD and ACD was R= 0.68, R = 0.93, respectively. With a graded protocol R = 0.84 for ICD and R = 0.98 for ACD. Relative coefficient of repeatability for ICD and ACD during constant load tests were 1.47 and 1.90 respectively and with a graded lead test were 1.69 and 1.52 respectively. It was concluded that the graded load test was more reproducible than the constant load test but only by a small margin, whilst ACD was much more reproducible than ICD using either protocol.