Exercise Group Outcome Audit
Pradeep Chockalingam Senior Physiotherapist



 This audit was presented in North-East

Regional Vascular Conference at Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K on November 2006.


Aim of this audit
 To find out the feasibility & evidence behind

the new outcome measures.
 To assess the effectiveness of the new

outcome measures.
 To analyse the effectiveness of the exercise


P.V.D or P.A.D ?
 The Intermittent Claudication (I.C) is caused

by the atherosclerosis of the arteries of lower limbs. (Hiatt WR et al 1990)
 Vascular is a global term which includes

arteries and veins.
 As I.C is caused by the disease of the

arteries, Peripheral Arterial Disease (P.A.D) is the appropriate term.

Why Exercise group for P.A.D?
 Regular exercises improves the walking

ability and delays the onset of claudication pain.
 Exercise is an integral part of P.A.D

 Supervised exercise is superior than the

home based exercise programme.
(Hirsch AT et al 2006, Leng GC et al 2000 & Bendermacher BLW et al 2006)

What participants do ?
 It’s a seven week exercise programme, two

sessions per week
 First and last classes dedicated for Pre &

Post rehab subjective & objective assessment/data collection.
 12 different exercise stations. Participants

work at each station for five minutes for approx 45 minutes.

What’s New ?
 Introduced new Evidence Based Objective &

Subjective outcome measures.
 Objective: 6-Minute Walk Test.

 Subjective: Walking Impairment

 New Database to collect and analyse data

quicker & accurate.

Why 6-MWT than Treadmill ?
 Sensitive, Safe, Simple & Cost effective.  6 MWT is the best alternative to the Treadmill

Test & equally sensitive.
 Treadmill test may not reflect daily activity.  More acceptable by Older people as walking

is a day to day activity.
 Suitable for the community setup.
(Enright PL et al 2003, Scherer SA 2004, Ohtake PJ 2005, Montgomery PS et al 1998)

Why W.I.Q than SF36 ?
 Disease specific.  Simple and straight forward.  Easy to complete compared to SF-36.  Informative and able to assess the patients

point of view.
 Able to assess other limiting factors.
(Regensteiner JG et al 1990, Scherer SA 2004)

The Group
 Number of groups included in this audit = 3  Total number of participants recruited to this

three groups = 32
 Total number of participants completed the

seven week programme = 25
 Total number of drop-outs = 7

78% 22%

The Group
 Sex ratio: 2.5 Male:1 Female  Average age: 70 Years  Average height: 171 Centemeters  Average weight: 87 Kilogrames  Average 75% of predicted maximum

6-MWD: 332 Meters (Enright PL et al 2003)

Claudication Distance
185 180 175 170 165 Claudication Distance Pre Post

Average Pre rehab (6MWT) : 172 Meters Average Post rehab (6MWT) : 184 Meters (Difference: +12 Meters OR +24%)

Pre & Post rehab Claudication Distance Difference by %

10 5

No Change Improvement Remakrable Improvement

< -9% -9% to +9% 10% to +99% > +99%

=7 =5 = 10 =3

Total 6-Minute Walk Distance
310 305 300 295 290 285 280 Total 6-MWD Pre Post

Average Pre rehab: 290 Meters Average Post rehab: 306 Meters (Difference: +16 Meters or +8%)

Pre & Post rehab Total 6-MWD Difference by %


No Change


Improvement Remarkable Improvement

< -5 % -5 % to +5 % > +5 % to +49 % >+49 %

=2 = 14 =8 =1

Total number of rest taken
20 15 10 5 0 Rest Pre Post

Pre rehab: 18 Average: 0.7 Post rehab: 10 Average: 0.4 (Difference: -8 or +56%)

What’s the Standards ?
 *Claudication distance improvement by 179%.

 *Total walking distance improvement by 122%.
(For approx 36 sessions of supervised exercise)

 Similar reflection on the W.I.Q. questionnaire

compared to the 6-MWT results.
(*Gardner AW et al 1995,*Schainfeld RM 2001 , Regensteiner JG et al 1990 & Tsai JC et al 2002) www.scribd.com/cpradheep

What’s the Result ?
 Claudication distance

improvement = 24%
 Total walking distance

Predicted 36 sessions result
 Claudication distance

improvement = 8%

improvement = 72 %
 Total walking distance

(For 12 sessions of supervised exercise)
 Similar reflection on the

improvement = 24 %

W.I.Q questionnaire compared to the 6MWT outcome = 50%

Analysis of Data
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Claudication Total 6-MWD Distance W.I.Q

Standards Result Predicted

Any Improvement ?
 Yes, signs of improvement were noted as

Stewart KJ et al 2002 states “benefits have been observed as early as four weeks”.
 But results were not up to the standards


Why Shortfall ? (Duration)
 Duration: Very short duration, excluding the

first & the last sessions only six weeks of two sessions per week.
 Evidence suggest minimum of three months

with three sessions per week.
(Leng GC et al 2000, Hirsch AT et al 2006)

Why Shortfall ? (Level of Exercise)
 Level of exercise: Mild level of exercise.  Papers used intermittent treadmill walking to

maximal tolerance level of pain for approx 30

to 45 minutes per session.

(Hiatt WR et al 1990 & 1994)

 The above is not practical, which may leads

to less compliant from the participants

(Hunt D et al

and high dropout rate.

Why Shortfall ? (Participants)
 In most studies participants have had only mild

to moderate claudication only.

(Stewart KE et al 2002)

 Our participants were with moderate or severe

claudication and with multiple mobility limiting factors.

Why Shortfall ? (6-MWT)
 Due to time factor unable to do Pre & Post

rehab assessment one person at a time as per the guideline.
 Distraction of the examinee by the other

participants (mainly during Post rehab)
 Unable to control environment factors of the

hall (Temperature & Humidity level).
 Using lots of different examiners.
(ATS Statement 2002)

Why Shortfall ? (Q.o.L)
 No one walk with a yard stick

 Over or under predict their own performance

(mainly during Pre rehab) modification to suite here.

(Enright PL 2003)

 U.S based Questionnaire. Therefore did few

 Due to geography of Gateshead most of the

participants struggle to answer properly.

What we have achieved by the new Outcome Measures ?
 Evidence based and most appropriate for this

group of patients.  Sensitive, Safe and Simple.  Well tolerated by the patients and cost effective.  Able to collect and analyse various data at one time.  Able to assess patients perception of other mobility limiting factors.

Suggestions / Recommendations
 Increasing the duration of the group by three

months & three sessions per week.
1995, Leng GC et al 2000, Chockalingam P 2006)

(Gardner AW et al

 Replace the resistance exercise (Arm weights,

Teraband) stations with more functional
(Hiatt WR et al 1994 & Stewart KJ et al 2002)

 Minimising the examiners.

(ATS Statement 2002)


Suggestions / Recommendations
 Suggesting participants to work to the level 3

of pain & to the perceived exertion level of 4 to 5. (Gardner AW et al 1995 & Leng GC et al 2000)
 Conceder altering the standard to local &

feasible level for further audit due to vast difference and limitations in practice compared to the evidence.

 

ATS Statement 2002: Guidelines for the Six-Minute Walk Test: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 166. pp. 111-117. Bendermacher BLW et al 2006; Supervised Exercise Therapy versus NonSupervised Exercise Therapy for Intermittent Claudication; The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Iss-2, No CD005263.pub2 Chockalingam P 2006: P.A.D. Exercise Group Patient Questionnaire & Documentation Audit: Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust. Enright PL et al 2003; The 6-min Walk Test: A Quick Measure of Functional Status in Elderly Adults. Chest; Vol 123; Page 387-398. Enright PL 2003; The Six-Minute Walk Test: Resp Care; Vol-48,No-8, 783-785. Gardner AW et al 1995; Exercise Rehabilitation Programs for the Treatment of Claudication Pain: A Meta-Analysis: JAMA; Vol-274, No-12, 975-980. Hiatt WR et al 1990; Benefits of Exercise Conditioning for Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease; Circulation; Vol-81, No-2;602-609.

    



Hiatt WR et al 1994; Superiority of treadmill walking exercise versus Strength training for patients with peripheral arterial disease. Implications for the mechanism of the training response: Circulation; Vol-90, 1866-1874. Hiatt WR et al 1995; Clinical Trials for Claudication: Assessment of Exercise Performance, Functional Status, and Clinical End Points; Circulation; 92:614621. Hirsch AT et al 2006; ACC/AHA Guidelines for the management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease (Lower Extremity, Renal, Mesentric, and Abdominal Aortic): Journal of the American College of Cardiology; Vol-47, No-6, 1239-1312. Hunt D et al 1999; Intermittent claudication: Implementation of an exercise programme. Treatment report; Physiotherapy; Vol-83, No-3, 149-153. Leng GC et al 2000; Exercise for Intermittent Claudication; The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Iss-2, No: CD000990 Montgomery PS et al 1998: The Clinical utility of a Six-Minute Walk Test in Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease Patients; J Ame Geri Society; Vol- 46, No6, 706-711.

  


Ohtake PJ 2005; Field Tests of Aerobic Capacity for Children and Older Adults; Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal; Vol 16, N23, Page 5-11&40

Regensteiner JG et al 1990; Evaluation of Walking Impairment by Questionnaire in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease; Journal of Vascular Medicine and Biology. Vol- 2, No-3, Page 142-152.
Schainfeld RM 2001: Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease and Intermittent Claudication; J Am Board Fam Pract; Vol-14. No-6, 443-445.

Scherer SA 2004; Research Corner: Functional Outcome Measurements for Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease; Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal; Vol 15, No3, Page 23-28.
Stewart KJ et al 2002; Exercise Training for Claudication; The New England Journal of Medicine; Vol-347, Iss-24, Page 1941-1951.

 

Tsai JC et al 2002; The Effects of Exercise Training on Walking Function and Perception of Health status in Elderly Patients with Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease; Journal of Internal Medicine; Vol 252, Page 448-455


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.