4.6 Review

Six-minute walk test in systemic sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages 265-273

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.084

Keywords

Six-minute walk test; Pulmonary arterial hypertension; Interstitial lung disease; Systemic sclerosis; Exercise testing

Funding

  1. Research Foundation - Flanders (Belgium) (FWO) [1.5.217.13N]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) are the leading causes of death in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Although the six-minute walk test (6MWT) is generally used for evaluating PAH and ILD, utility in SSc is undetermined. This study evaluates the role of 6MWT in SSc by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library Online was performed using the medical subject heading search terms for systemic sclerosis, CREST and sixminute walk test, six minute walk distance (6MWD), (cardiopulmonary) exercise test, treadmill test or step test. Results: Meta-analysis of 43 included studies (3185 SSc-all patients) revealed that the mean 6MWD was comparable between the SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD-PH subgroups (288 m [95% CI: 259-317 m] vs 286 m [95% CI: 259-314 m], p = 0.93). The pooled mean of 725 SSc-PAH patients was significantly lower than the pooled mean of 413 SSc-noPAH patients (430 m [95% CI: 402-458 m], p < 0.001). 95 SSc-ILD-PH patients walked significantly less than 328 SSc-ILD patients (388 m [95% CI: 362-415 m], p < 0.001) and significantly less than 86 SSc-noILD patients (420 m [95% CI: 325-515 m], p = 0.008). 81-98% of the SSc-PAH/ILD/ILD-PH patients performed a 6MWT. Conclusions: During a 6MWT, SSc-PAH patients walk less than SSc-noPAH patients and SSc-ILD-PH patients walk less than SSc-ILD and SSc-noILD patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available