Twenty-one eligible COPD patients were studied (13 male/8 female, FEV % predicted of 36.5 ± 9.8). Both CPAP and EPAP demonstrated significant post-pre (Δ) changes for IC and PImax, with mean ΔIC for CPAP and EPAP of 200 ± 100 mL and 170 ± 105 mL (P = .001 for both) in 13 and 12 patients (responders) respectively. There were similar changes in % predicted IC and PImax (∼7%, P = .001 for both) for responders and poor responder/non-responder agreement depending on CPAP/EPAP mode (Kappa = .113, P = .604). There were no differences in CPAP and EPAP regarding intensity of lung deflation (P =.254) and no difference was measured regarding HR (P = .235) or SpO (P = .111) CONCLUSIONS: Both CPAP and EPAP presented a similar effect on lung deflation, without guaranteeing that the response to one modality would be predictive of the response to the other.

Step tests are a stressful and feasible cost-effective modality to evaluate aerobic performance. However, the eccentric in addition to concentric muscle contractions of the legs on stepping emerge as a potential speeding factor for cardioventilatory and metabolic adjustments towards a steady-state, since eccentric contractions would prompt an earlier and stronger mechanoreceptor activation, as well as higher heart rate/cardiac output adjustments to the same metabolic demand. Moreover, shorter tests are ideal for exercise-limited subjects. Nine subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were invited to participate in comprehensive lung function tests and constant work tests performed on different days at a 90% gas exchange threshold for 6 min, in single-step tests or cycle ergometry. After careful monoexponential regression modelling, statistically relevant faster phase II time constants for oxygen uptake (45 ± 18 s vs 53 ± 17 s, p = 0.017) and minute ventilation (61 ± 13 s vs 74 ± 17 s, p = 0.027) were observed in the 6-min step tests compared with cycle ergometry, respectively. Despite an absence of heart rate time constant difference (43 ± 20 s vs 69 ± 46 s, p = 0.167), there was a significantly faster rate constant toward a steady state for heart rate (p = 0.02). In addition, 4-min compared with 6-min analysis presented similar results (p > 0.05), providing an appropriate steady-state. We conclude that step tests might elicit faster time constants compared with cycle ergometry, at the same average metabolic level, and 4-min analysis has similar mean errors compared with 6-min analysis within an acceptable range. New studies, comprising mechanisms and detailed physiological backgrounds, are necessary.