Comparison of chest- and wrist-based actigraphy in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Evaluating the technical use of a Fitbit during an intervention for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension with quality of life as primary endpoint: Lessons learned from the UPHILL study

This article examines technical use of Fitbit during an intervention for pulmonary hypertension (PAH)-patients. Technical issues with the device led to data being unavailable(37.5%). During intervention objective daily physical activity (DPA) decreased and subjective DPA increased. This emphasizes that an assessment of DPA in PAH requires incorporating both objective and subjective measurements.

Peak steps: Capacity for activity improves after adding approved therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients have low activity. Activity intensity or duration could be a measure of clinical status or improvement. We aimed to determine whether standard or novel actigraphy measures could detect increases in activity after adding therapy. This was a prospective, single-center observational study evaluating activity after adding therapy in Group 1 PAH; we also report a validation cohort. For our study, two different accelerometers were used, a wrist (ActiGraph) and chest (MC10) device. Patients were analyzed in two groups, Treatment Intensification (TI, adding therapy) or Stable. Both groups had baseline monitoring periods of 7 days; the TI group had follow-up at 3 months, while Stables had follow-up within 4 weeks to assess stability. Activity time and steps were reported from both devices' proprietary algorithms. In ActiGraph only, steps in 1-min intervals throughout the day were ranked (not necessarily contiguous). Average values for each week were calculated and compared using nonparametric testing. Thirty patients had paired data (11 Stable and 19 TI). There was no between-group difference at baseline; we did not observe therapy-associated changes on average daily steps or activity time/intensity. The top 5 min of steps (capacity) increased after adding therapy; there was no difference in the stable group. This key finding was validated in a previously reported randomized trial studying a behavioral intervention to increase exercise. Total daily activity metrics are influenced by both disease and non-disease factors, making therapy-associated change difficult to detect. Peak minute steps were a treatment-responsive marker in both a pharmacologic and training intervention.

Cardiac Effort to Compare Clinic and Remote 6-Minute Walk Testing in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has limited objective physiologic assessments. A standardized remote alternative is not currently available. "Cardiac effort" (CE), that is, the total number of heart beats divided by the 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance (beats/m), has improved reproducibility in the 6MWT and correlated with right ventricular function in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can a chest-based accelerometer estimate 6MWT distance remotely? Is remote cardiac effort more reproducible than 6MWT distance when compared with clinic assessment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective observational study, with institutional review board approval, completed between October 2020 and April 2021. Group 1 subjects with pulmonary arterial hypertension, receiving stable therapy for > 90 days, completed four to six total 6MWTs during a 2-week period to assess reproducibility. The first and last 6MWTs were performed in the clinic; two to four remote 6MWTs were completed at each participant's discretion. Masks were not worn. BioStamp nPoint sensors (MC10) were worn on the chest to measure heart rate and accelerometry. Two blinded readers counted laps, using accelerometry data obtained on the clinic or user-defined course. Averages of clinic variables and remote variables were used for Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests, Bland-Altman plots, or Spearman correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Estimated 6MWT distance, using the MC10, correlated strongly with directly measured 6MWT distance (r = 0.99; P < .0001; in 20 subjects). Remote 6MWT distances were shorter than clinic 6MWT distances: 405 m (330-464 m) vs 389 m (312-430 m) (P = .002). There was no difference between in-clinic and remote CE: 1.75 beats/m (1.48-2.20 beats/m) vs 1.86 beats/m (1.57-2.14 beats/m) (P = .14).

INTERPRETATION

Remote 6MWT was feasible on a user-defined course; 6MWT distance was shorter than clinic distance. CE calculated by chest heart rate and accelerometer-estimated distance provides a reproducible remote assessment of exercise tolerance, comparable to the clinic-measured value.