Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance: established cardiovascular disease1This paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity clearance, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S190-S213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott G. Thomas ◽  
Jack M. Goodman ◽  
Jamie F. Burr

Physical activity is an effective lifestyle therapy for patients at risk for, or with, documented cardiovascular disease (CVD). Current screening tools — the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and the Physical Activity Readiness Medical Evaluation (PARmed-X) — require updating to align with risk/benefit evidence. We provide evidence-based recommendations to identify individuals with CVD at lower risk, intermediate risk, or higher risk of adverse events when participating in physical activity. Forms of exercise and the settings that will appropriately manage the risks are identified. A computer-assisted search of electronic databases, using search terms for CVD and physical activity risks and benefits, was employed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation were applied to assess the evidence and assign a strength of evidence rating. A strength rating for the physical activity participation clearance recommendation was assigned on the basis of the evidence. Recommendations for physical activity clearance were made for specific CVD groups. Evidence indicates that those who are medically stable, who are involved with physical activity, and who have adequate physical ability can participate in physical activity of lower to moderate risk. Patients at higher risk can exercise in medically supervised programs. Systematic evaluation of evidence indicates that clinically stable individuals with CVD may participate in physical activity with little risk of adverse events. Therefore, changes in the PAR-Q should be undertaken and a process of assessment and consultation to replace the PARmed-X should be developed. Patients at lower risk may exercise at low to moderate intensities with minimal supervision. Those at intermediate risk should exercise with guidance from a qualified exercise professional. Patients at higher risk should exercise in medically supervised programs.

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S1-S2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren E.R. Warburton ◽  
Veronica K. Jamnik ◽  
Shannon S.D. Bredin ◽  
Don C. McKenzie ◽  
James Stone ◽  
...  

The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and the Physical Activity Readiness Medical Evaluation (PARmed-X) are internationally renowned and extensively used preparticipation screening tools. However, recent feedback from end-users has identified limitations to the existing PAR-Q and PARmed-X screening process. As such, a systematic evaluation of the PAR-Q and PARmed-X forms was conducted, adhering to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. Recognized experts in physical activity (PA) and prominent health conditions worked with an expert consensus panel to increase the effectiveness of the PAR-Q and PARmed-X PA participation clearance process. The systematic review process established that the health benefits of PA participation far outweigh the risks in the vast majority of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. A new risk continuum and decision tree process was created to allow for the effective risk stratification of prominent health conditions, reducing greatly the barriers to PA participation for the majority of individuals. The new PA participation clearance process is available in new paper and online versions (PAR-Q+) and the PARmed-X was replaced with an online interactive computer programme (ePARmed-X+). It is anticipated that this new risk stratification and PA clearance process will reduce markedly the barriers for PA participation for both asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S266-S298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren E.R. Warburton ◽  
Norman Gledhill ◽  
Veronica K. Jamnik ◽  
Shannon S.D. Bredin ◽  
Don C. McKenzie ◽  
...  

The Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and the Physical Activity Readiness Medical Evaluation (PARmed-X) are internationally known preparticipation screening tools developed on the basis of expert opinion. The primary purposes of this consensus document were to seek evidence-based support for the PAR-Q and PARmed-X forms, to identify whether further revisions of these instruments are warranted, to determine how people responding positively to questions on the PAR-Q can be safely cleared without medical referral, and to develop exercise clearance procedures appropriate for various clinical conditions across the human lifespan. Seven systematic reviews were conducted, examining physical-activity-related risks and effective risk-stratification procedures for various prevalent chronic conditions. An additional systematic review assessed the risks associated with exercise testing and training of the general population. Two gap areas were identified and evaluated systematically: the role of the qualified exercise professional and the requisite core competencies required by those working with various chronic conditions; and the risks associated with physical activity during pregnancy. The risks associated with being physically inactive are markedly higher than transient risks during and following an acute bout of exercise in both asymptomatic and symptomatic populations across the lifespan. Further refinements of the PAR-Q and the PARmed-X (including online versions of the forms) are required to address the unique limitations imposed by various chronic health conditions, and to allow the inclusion of individuals across their entire lifespan. A probing decision-tree process is proposed to assist in risk stratification and to reduce barriers to physical activity. Qualified exercise professionals will play an essential role in this revised physical activity clearance process.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S80-S100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil D. Eves ◽  
Warren J. Davidson

The 2 most common respiratory diseases are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Growing evidence supports the benefits of exercise for all patients with these diseases. Due to the etiology of COPD and the pathophysiology of asthma, there may be some additional risks of exercise for these patients, and hence accurate risk assessment and clearance is needed before patients start exercising. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the available literature regarding the risks of exercise for patients with respiratory disease and provide evidence-based recommendations to guide the screening process. A systematic review of 4 databases was performed. The literature was searched to identify adverse events specific to exercise. For COPD, 102 randomized controlled trials that involved an exercise intervention were included (n = 6938). No study directly assessed the risk of exercise, and only 15 commented on exercise-related adverse events. For asthma, 30 studies of mixed methodologies were included (n = 1278). One study directly assessed the risk of exercise, and 15 commented on exercise-related adverse events. No exercise-related fatalities were reported. The majority of adverse events in COPD patients were musculoskeletal or cardiovascular in nature. In asthma patients, exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and (or) asthma symptoms were the primary adverse events. There is no direct evidence regarding the risk of exercise for patients with COPD or asthma. However, based on the available literature, it would appear that with adequate screening and optimal medical therapy, the risk of exercise for these respiratory patients is low.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S113-S153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan E. Rhodes ◽  
Viviene A. Temple ◽  
Holly A. Tuokko

Physical activity has established mental and physical health benefits, but related adverse events have not received attention. The purpose of this paper was to review the documented adverse events occurring from physical activity participation among individuals with psychological or cognitive conditions. Literature was identified through electronic database (e.g., MEDLINE, psychINFO) searching. Studies were eligible if they described a published paper examining the effect of changes on physical activity behaviour, included a diagnosed population with a cognitive or psychological disorder, and reported on the presence or absence of adverse events. Quality of included studies was assessed, and the analyses examined the overall evidence by available subcategories. Forty trials passed the eligibility criteria; these were grouped (not mutually exclusively) by dementia (n = 5), depression (n = 10), anxiety disorders (n = 12), eating disorders (n = 4), psychotic disorders (n = 4), and intellectual disability (n = 15). All studies displayed a possible risk of bias, ranging from moderate to high. The results showed a relatively low prevalence of adverse events. Populations with dementia, psychological disorders, or intellectual disability do not report considerable or consequential adverse events from physical activity independent of associated comorbidities. The one exception to these findings may be Down syndrome populations with atlantoaxial instability; in these cases, additional caution may be required during screening for physical activity. This review, however, highlights the relative paucity of the reported presence or absence of adverse events, and finds that many studies are at high risk of bias toward reporting naturally occurring adverse events.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S214-S231 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Paul Zehr

Physical activity (PA) has potential benefits after stroke or spinal cord injury (SCI), especially in improving efficiency and functional capacity in activities of daily living. Currently, many who could benefit from PA may be routinely excluded from participation because of myths related to functional capacity and the concern for harm. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the literature for reports of adverse events during exercise after stroke or SCI, and to provide recommendations regarding exercise participation in supervised and unsupervised environments. Studies were evaluated for quality, and the summary level and quality of evidence were evaluated using the AGREE rubric, modified to address the main outcome measure of adverse events. Levels of exercise stress were evaluated for aerobic activities, using an established rubric. Included in the current analysis were 32 studies for stroke and 4 for SCI. In aggregate, this yielded a total of 730 experimental participants with stroke and 143 with SCI. It should be noted that almost all studies were not designed to examine naturally occurring adverse events from PA. Significant contraindications to unsupervised exercise include manifestation of autonomic dysreflexia in SCI and cardiovascular comorbidity after stroke. There are clear benefits of exercise training on physiological outcomes in stroke and SCI, but the relation between outcomes and safety remains unclear. However, taken on balance, the risk-to-benefit ratio favors the recommendation of exercise. This recommendation is based on studies in which participants were almost universally screened for participation in supervised environments. Thus, the grading of evidence for finding adverse events to support this conclusion is inadequate.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S3-S13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica K. Jamnik ◽  
Darren E.R. Warburton ◽  
Julie Makarski ◽  
Donald C. McKenzie ◽  
Roy J. Shephard ◽  
...  

Recent feedback from physical activity (PA) participants, fitness professionals, and physicians has indicated that there are limitations to the utility and effectiveness of the existing PAR-Q and PARmed-X screening tools for PA participation. The aim of this study was to have authorities in exercise and chronic disease management to work with an expert panel to increase the effectiveness of clearance for PA participation using an evidence-based consensus approach and the well-established Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. Systematic reviews were conducted to develop a new PA clearance protocol involving risk stratification and a decision-tree process. Evidence-based support was sought for enabling qualified exercise professionals to have a direct role in the PA participation clearance process. The PAR-Q+ was developed to use formalized probes to clarify problematic responses and to explore issues arising from currently diagnosed chronic disease or condition. The original PARmed-X tool is replaced with an interactive computer program (ePARmed-X+) to clear prospective PA participants for either unrestricted or supervised PA or to direct them to obtain medical clearance. Evidence-based validation was also provided for the direct role of highly qualified university-educated exercise professionals in the PA clearance process. The risks associated with exercise during pregnancy were also evaluated. The systematic review and consensus process, conforming to the AGREE Instrument, has provided a sound evidence base for enhanced effectiveness of the clearance process for PA participation of both asymptomatic populations and persons with chronic diseases or conditions.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S101-S112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee W. Jones

Physical activity is becoming increasingly acknowledged as an integral component of in the multidisciplinary management of cancer patients. Intensive inquiry in this area is likely to increase further over the next decade; however, cancer-specific, evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity are not available. A systematic literature review was performed of all studies conducting an exercise training intervention and (or) any form of objective exercise test among adults diagnosed with cancer. Studies were assessed according to evaluation criteria developed by a panel of experts. A total of 118 studies involving 5529 patients were deemed eligible. Overall, the results suggest that exercise training and maximal and submaximal exercise testing are relatively safe procedures with a total nonlife-threatening adverse event rate of <2%. There was only 1 exercise training-related death. However, the quality of exercise testing methodology and data reporting is less than optimal. Thus, whether the low incidence of events reflects the true safety of exercise training and exercise testing in cancer patients or less than optimal methodology and (or) data reporting remains to be determined. Evidence-based absolute and relative contraindications to physical activity and exercise training and testing are provided as well as probing decision-trees to optimize the adoption and safety of physical activity in persons diagnosed with cancer.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S154-S189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Riddell ◽  
Jamie Burr

Physical activity (PA) is one of the most powerful treatment options for persons with prediabetes or diabetes. However, some elevation in risk occurs with increased PA, at least initially, and certain precautions need to be made to lower these risks, particularly if these persons are unaccustomed to exercise. We conducted a standardized search of all adverse events associated with increased PA in persons with prediabetes or diabetes (type 1 or type 2) and provided evidence-based guidelines on PA screening in these apparently high-risk individuals. A systematic literature review was performed of all studies reporting on adverse events in persons with prediabetes or diabetes. Studies included were from all designs (retrospective and prospective including randomized controlled trials) and were assessed according to evaluation criteria adapted by a consensus panel. A total of 47 studies, involving >8000 individuals, were deemed eligible. A number of these studies identified a range of mild to severe acute risks with exercise (musculoskeletal injury, hypoglycemia, foot ulceration, proliferative retinopathy, hypotension, sudden death) but the overall prevalence was low. Based on several randomized controlled trials and prospective studies in which prescribed exercise was performed at a wide range of intensities, it appears that increased PA is a relatively safe procedure with no evidence of a loss of life. Based on our assessment of the available literature, we provide a new PA risk algorithm for persons with prediabetes and diabetes and comment on the role of the patient, the qualified exercise professional, and the patient’s physician in the risk screening process.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. S49-S79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D. Chilibeck ◽  
Hassanali Vatanparast ◽  
Stephen M. Cornish ◽  
Saman Abeysekara ◽  
Sarah Charlesworth

We systematically reviewed the safety of physical activity (PA) for people with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Sport Discus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 through March 2008) for relevant articles on PA and adverse events. A total of 111 articles met our inclusion criteria. The incidence for adverse events during PA was 3.4%–11% (0.06%–2.4% serious adverse events) and included increased joint pain, fracture, and back pain for those with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain, respectively. Recommendations were based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, which applies Levels of Evidence based on type of study ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials (Level 1) to anecdotal evidence (Level 4) and Grades from A (strong) to C (weak). Our main recommendations are that (i) arthritic patients with highly progressed forms of disease should avoid heavy load-bearing activities, but should participate in non-weight-bearing activities (Level 2, Grade A); and (ii) patients with osteoporosis should avoid trunk flexion (Level 2, Grade A) and powerful twisting of the trunk (Level 3, Grade C); (iii) patients with acute low back pain can safely do preference-based PA (i.e., PA that does not induce pain), including low back extension and flexion (Level 2, Grade B); (iv) arthritic patients with stable disease without progressive joint damage and patients with stable osteoporosis or low back pain can safely perform a variety of progressive aerobic or resistance-training PAs (Level 2, Grades A and B). Overall, the adverse event incidence from reviewed studies was low. PA can safely be done by most individuals with musculoskeletal conditions.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1906-1906
Author(s):  
Hollie Elise Sheffield ◽  
Yu-Min Shen ◽  
Nivan Chowattukunnel ◽  
Waqas Haque

Abstract Background: Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a diagnosis that is often incidentally made after a serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) is ordered as part of the evaluation for multiple nonspecific symptoms and is often ordered by non-hematologists. Currently, there is a lack of guidance regarding the extent of evaluation and follow-up required for these patients. Objective: Determine whether the risk stratification of the abnormal SPEP predicted progression to multiple myeloma (MM) or other lymphoplasmacytic malignancies (LPM) and could act as a guideline for appropriate follow-up in attempts to provide evidence-based, higher value care. Design: A retrospective review was performed of patients referred to the county hematology clinic for an abnormal SPEP from 2012 to 2019. The SPEP results were then risk-stratified and individual patient charts were reviewed to determine the symptomatology present at the time it was ordered, as well as the clinical course of the patients over time. Main Measures: Patients were stratified into low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate, and high risk groups for progression to MM based on the Mayo Clinic criteria. Additional information was also analyzed including the number of SPEP tests per patient, the indication stated for ordering the SPEP, and the presence of symptoms that are associated with MM at the time the SPEP was ordered, including anemia, renal failure, hypercalcemia, and bone lesions (commonly known as "CRAB symptoms"). Results: We abstracted data from 436 patients referred to the hematology clinic associated with a large county hospital system for an abnormal SPEP. The most common documented reasons for SPEP testing were increased creatinine (35%), protein gap (12%), and decreased hemoglobin (11%). Of these patients, 24 (5.5%) developed MM, 19 of whom were stratified into the high-intermediate risk group. More than a thousand SPEP results were obtained in the low and low-intermediate risk groups with only 5 patients diagnosed with MM. In the high-intermediate and low-intermediate risk groups, between 2-3 SPEP tests were performed prior to making the diagnosis of MM. In the low risk group, 6 SPEP tests were performed prior to reaching the MM diagnosis. Among the 5 patients in the low and low-intermediate risk groups who developed MM, all 5 had one or more of the CRAB symptoms at the time of the initial SPEP. Conclusion: Of the patients with MGUS who progressed to MM, approximately 80% were in the high-intermediate risk group. Of the remaining patients who progressed to MM from the lower risk groups, all had one or more of the previously mentioned CRAB symptoms, a higher percentage compared to the low and low-intermediate risk groups overall. In the absence of symptomatic disease, there is insufficient evidence to support serial SPEP testing in the lower risk patients. The use of evidence-based risk stratification may minimize unnecessary testing and hematology referrals while resulting in significant cost-savings and higher value care. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document