{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02681992337164751, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016602809706257982, 'mean_word_length': 5.05019305019305, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Metabolic Expenditure During CAEP Versus a Test Adapted to Aerobic Capacity (Harbor Test) in Elderly Healthy Individuals

Cardiopulmonary exercise tests are frequently used to test rate responsive pacemakers. The chronotropic assessment exercise protocol (CAEP) has been specifically proposed for the evaluation of rate responsive pacing systems. A mathematical method, based on CAEP measurements, was developed with a view of normalizing the exercise induced metabolic response. CAEP was compared to a tailored protocol (Harbor), adapted to the metabolic capacity of each patient. Harbor was set to keep the exercise duration within 10 minutes and achieve a workload as linear as possible. Metabolic parameters were continuously recorded by a cardiopulmonary system. Those data were used in the construction of slopes by the normalization method. The results of the tests performed in 16 elderly healthy patients showed no differences in metabolic or functional parameters. Slopes of the mathematical model were comparable (1.09 ± 0.16 for CAEP vs 1.07 ± 0.17 for Harbor), though both were higher than the value of 1, defined as normal. In both cases, linearity was confirmed by the coefficient of correlation (0.98 ± 0.02 for CAEP and Harbor). In conclusion, no significant differences were found in the outcomes of the two protocols. Higher values of the slopes with the normalization method can be explained by the definition of the maximal predicted heart rate as 220 — age, which is probably not appropriate for elderly, healthy, active subjects.