Marcus Granegger1,2, Thomas Schlöglhofer1,2,3, Henrik Ober1, Daniel Zimpfer3, Heinrich Schima1,2,3, Francesco Moscato1,2. 1. Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna - Austria. 2. Ludwig-Boltzmann-Cluster for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna - Austria. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna - Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exercise capacity is usually evaluated by peak oxygen consumption (peak-VO2). However, assessment of peak-VO2 in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) might not be the best method to provide insight into their daily life activity. The aim of this study was to assess the postoperative activity of LVAD patients using actigraphy and to compare these patients to a healthy and a heart-transplanted (HTx) population. METHODS: Activity was continuously monitored using wrist-accelerometers in LVAD patients after implantation, during 4 weeks of rehabilitation following hospital discharge, and at 2 follow-up assessments. Peak-VO2 values measured during rehabilitation were correlated with activity. Additionally, actigraphy data from LVAD recipients were compared with data measured in healthy and HTx subjects. RESULTS: After hospital discharge a significant increase in physical activity of LVAD recipients was observed (55 ± 28 vs. 102 ± 23 Activity Scores, n = 11, p = 0.002). During rehabilitation as well as at the follow-ups (140 ± 43 and 253 ± 33 days post-implantation) no significant increase in activity was observed. Peak-VO2 values correlated to daily activity both in LVAD and HTx patients (r > 0.5). Average daily activity was significantly lower in LVAD and HTx patients than in the healthy population (130 ± 30 and 148 ± 60 vs. 245 ± 63 Activity Score; n = 18 in each group, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Activity in LVAD recipients increased substantially after hospital discharge with no further significant improvement observed during a period of 8.5 months. Similarly to the peak-VO2, also the daily activity of LVAD recipients was 53% compared to healthy subjects. These results highlight the need for an optimized physical therapy in this patient cohort.
PURPOSE: Exercise capacity is usually evaluated by peak oxygen consumption (peak-VO2). However, assessment of peak-VO2 in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) might not be the best method to provide insight into their daily life activity. The aim of this study was to assess the postoperative activity of LVAD patients using actigraphy and to compare these patients to a healthy and a heart-transplanted (HTx) population. METHODS: Activity was continuously monitored using wrist-accelerometers in LVAD patients after implantation, during 4 weeks of rehabilitation following hospital discharge, and at 2 follow-up assessments. Peak-VO2 values measured during rehabilitation were correlated with activity. Additionally, actigraphy data from LVAD recipients were compared with data measured in healthy and HTx subjects. RESULTS: After hospital discharge a significant increase in physical activity of LVAD recipients was observed (55 ± 28 vs. 102 ± 23 Activity Scores, n = 11, p = 0.002). During rehabilitation as well as at the follow-ups (140 ± 43 and 253 ± 33 days post-implantation) no significant increase in activity was observed. Peak-VO2 values correlated to daily activity both in LVAD and HTx patients (r > 0.5). Average daily activity was significantly lower in LVAD and HTx patients than in the healthy population (130 ± 30 and 148 ± 60 vs. 245 ± 63 Activity Score; n = 18 in each group, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Activity in LVAD recipients increased substantially after hospital discharge with no further significant improvement observed during a period of 8.5 months. Similarly to the peak-VO2, also the daily activity of LVAD recipients was 53% compared to healthy subjects. These results highlight the need for an optimized physical therapy in this patient cohort.
Authors: Djordje G Jakovljevic; Robert S George; David Nunan; Gay Donovan; Robert S Bougard; Magdi H Yacoub; Emma J Birks; David A Brodie Journal: Heart Date: 2010-07-18 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Gregory J Tranah; Terri Blackwell; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Misti L Paudel; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Susan Redline; Teresa A Hillier; Steven R Cummings; Katie L Stone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: James K Kirklin; David C Naftel; Francis D Pagani; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Elizabeth D Blume; Marissa A Miller; J T Baldwin; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Melissa Jehn; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; Tibor Schuster; Michael Weis; Henner Hanssen; Martin Halle; Friedrich Koehler Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Roger Cole; Cathy Alessi; Mark Chambers; William Moorcroft; Charles P Pollak Journal: Sleep Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: J A Kobashigawa; D A Leaf; N Lee; M P Gleeson; H Liu; M A Hamilton; J D Moriguchi; N Kawata; K Einhorn; E Herlihy; H Laks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-01-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Djordje G Jakovljevic; Adam McDiarmid; Kate Hallsworth; Petar M Seferovic; Vladan M Ninkovic; Gareth Parry; Stephan Schueler; Michael I Trenell; Guy A MacGowan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Francesco Moscato; Christoph Gross; Martin Maw; Thomas Schlöglhofer; Marcus Granegger; Daniel Zimpfer; Heinrich Schima Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-03
Authors: Nils Reiss; Thomas Schmidt; Michael Boeckelmann; Sebastian Schulte-Eistrup; Jan-Dirk Hoffmann; Christina Feldmann; Jan D Schmitto Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 2.895