Assessment of Metabolic Capacity: The Relative Energy Cost of Participation in Power Wheelchair Soccer and Maximal Effort Assisted Cycle Test​

Topic:

Translational Research

Poster Number: P28

Author(s):

Shelby Vogt-Domke, B.S., Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Constance de Monts, PT, DPT, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Sabrina Salvatore, M.A., Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Samuel Montalvo, Ph.D, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Raiye Hailu, B.S., Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Lin Karman, B.S., Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Whitney Tang, B.A., Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Jeffrey Christle, Ph.D, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Tina Duong, PT, Ph.D, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University

BACKGROUND:
Adaptive sports encourage physical activity, which is essential for improving functional capacity and quality of life. Understanding the metabolic demands of adaptive activities like Power Wheelchair Soccer (PWCS) is key to enhancing training and well-being.

OBJECTIVES:
Our objective is to describe the change in metabolic demands of PWCS practice compared to the maximum effort of exercise testing using an assisted 6-minute cycling test (A6MCT).

METHODS:
Eleven participants from California leagues were recruited and consented to complete patient reported outcomes (PROs), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) using a K5 Cosmed portable metabolic system:​ 2min rest, 6 min maximal effort arm ergometer (A6MCT)​ followed by 2min rest​. Heart rate (HR) and respiratory gases were measured continuously for 10 minutes at typical PWCS practice intensity, with data analyzed every 30 seconds.

RESULTS:
Participants were diverse in disease and functional levels with: Non-sitters (4), Sitters (4), Supported Walkers (2), and Independent Walkers (1). The mean A6MCT revolutions were 220.4 ± 171.5 (range of 58-566). The OMNI scale (0-10) rate of perceived exertion averaged 5.44±2.7 during A6MCT, with no reported difference compared to PWCS practice. Average HR, oxygen consumption (VO2/kg) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were higher during A6MCT vs PWCS (121±19 vs105±15 bpm), Vo2/kg (5.93±3.19 vs 5.62±4.0 mL/kg/min), and RER (0.97±0.10 vs 0.93±0.10). Compared to resting, A6MCT increased metabolic expenditure by 48.2% (1.14±0.7 to 1.7±0.9) while PWCS increased 40.5% (1.6±1.1). Strong correlation (r=0.73) was seen between Vo2/kg for A6MCT & PWCS.

CONCLUSION:
Exercise testing using portable metabolic devices and an A6MCT to evaluate exercise capacity in PWCS players is feasible. Results show players for both activities achieve >1.5 METS meeting the Physical Activities for Americans Guidelines recommendation of light to moderate intensity exercise highlighting how adaptive sports fosters an active lifestyle. Future studies will include larger samples to assess PWCS’s impact on metabolic capacity.