Literature DB >> 33722305

Can wearable technology be used to approximate cardiopulmonary exercise testing metrics?

Laura Jones1, Laura Tan1, Suzanne Carey-Jones2, Nathan Riddell1, Richard Davies2, Ashleigh Brownsdon3, Mark Kelson3, Rhys Williams-Thomas4, Monica Busse4, Michael M Davies5, Matt P G Morgan6,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consumer wrist-worn wearable activity monitors are widely available, low cost and are able to provide a direct measurement of several markers of physical activity. Despite this, there is limited data on their use in perioperative risk prediction. We explored whether these wearables could accurately approximate metrics (anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake and peak work) derived using formalised cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients undergoing high-risk surgery.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for major elective intra-abdominal surgery and undergoing CPET were included. Physical activity levels were estimated through direct measures (step count, floors climbed and total distance travelled) obtained through continuous wear of a wrist worn activity monitor (Garmin Vivosmart HR+) for 7 days prior to surgery and self-report through completion of the short International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Correlations and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis explored the relationships between parameters provided by CPET and physical activity. DEVICE SELECTION: Our choice of consumer wearable device was made to maximise feasibility outcomes for this study. The Garmin Vivosmart HR+ had the longest battery life and best waterproof characteristics of the available low-cost devices.
RESULTS: Of 55 patients invited to participate, 49 (mean age 65.3 ± 13.6 years; 32 males) were enrolled; 37 provided complete wearable data for analyses and 36 patients provided full IPAQ data. Floors climbed, total steps and total travelled as measured by the wearable device all showed moderate correlation with CPET parameters of peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) (R = 0.57 (CI 0.29-0.76), R = 0.59 (CI 0.31-0.77) and R = 0.62 (CI 0.35-0.79) respectively), anaerobic threshold (R = 0.37 (CI 0.01-0.64), R = 0.39 (CI 0.04-0.66) and R = 0.42 (CI 0.07-0.68) respectively) and peak work (R = 0.56 (CI 0.27-0.75), R = 0.48 (CI 0.17-0.70) and R = 0.50 (CI 0.2-0.72) respectively). Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis for direct and self-reported measures of 7-day physical activity could accurately approximate the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2) and the anaerobic threshold. The area under these curves was 0.89 for VE/VCO2 and 0.91 for the anaerobic threshold. For peak VO2 and peak work, models fitted using just the wearable data were 0.93 for peak VO2 and 1.00 for peak work.
CONCLUSIONS: Data recorded by the wearable device was able to consistently approximate CPET results, both with and without the addition of patient reported activity measures via IPAQ scores. This highlights the potential utility of wearable devices in formal assessment of physical functioning and suggests they could play a larger role in pre-operative risk assessment. ETHICS: This study entitled "uSing wearable TEchnology to Predict perioperative high-riSk patient outcomes (STEPS)" gained favourable ethical opinion on 24 January 2017 from the Welsh Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 17/WA/0006. It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03328039.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anaerobic threshold; Cardiopulmonary exercise testing; Perioperative medicine; VO2; Wearable technology

Year:  2021        PMID: 33722305      PMCID: PMC7959880          DOI: 10.1186/s13741-021-00180-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perioper Med (Lond)        ISSN: 2047-0525


  7 in total

1.  Market and Patent Analyses of Wearables in Medicine.

Authors:  Julia E Mück; Barış Ünal; Haider Butt; Ali K Yetisen
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 19.536

2.  Perioperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET): consensus clinical guidelines on indications, organization, conduct, and physiological interpretation.

Authors:  D Z H Levett; S Jack; M Swart; J Carlisle; J Wilson; C Snowden; M Riley; G Danjoux; S A Ward; P Older; M P W Grocott
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  Exercise tests. A survey of procedures, safety, and litigation experience in approximately 170,000 tests.

Authors:  P Rochmis; H Blackburn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1971-08-23       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and its application.

Authors:  Khaled Albouaini; Mohaned Egred; Albert Alahmar; David Justin Wright
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.401

5.  Value of peak exercise oxygen consumption for optimal timing of cardiac transplantation in ambulatory patients with heart failure.

Authors:  D M Mancini; H Eisen; W Kussmaul; R Mull; L H Edmunds; J R Wilson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Chronotropic Competence Indices Extracted from Wearable Sensors for Cardiovascular Diseases Management.

Authors:  Jiankang Wu; Jianan Li; Andrew Seely; Yi Zhu; Sisi Huang; Xiaoqin Wang; Lei Zhao; Hongliang Wang; Herry Christophe
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.576

7.  Accuracy in Wrist-Worn, Sensor-Based Measurements of Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in a Diverse Cohort.

Authors:  Anna Shcherbina; C Mikael Mattsson; Daryl Waggott; Heidi Salisbury; Jeffrey W Christle; Trevor Hastie; Matthew T Wheeler; Euan A Ashley
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2017-05-24
  7 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Considerations for Conducting Bring Your Own "Device" (BYOD) Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Charmaine Demanuele; Cynthia Lokker; Krishna Jhaveri; Pirinka Georgiev; Emre Sezgin; Cindy Geoghegan; Kelly H Zou; Elena Izmailova; Marie McCarthy
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2022-07-04
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.