WalkingPad protocol: a randomized clinical trial of behavioral and motivational intervention added to smartphone-enabled supervised home-based exercise in patients with peripheral arterial disease and intermittent claudication

Mobile health technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is the obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, which can result in impaired oxygen supply to the muscle and other tissues during exercise, or even at rest in more severe cases. PAD is classified into five categories (Fontaine classification). It may be asymptomatic or various levels of claudication pain may be present; at a later stage, there may be ulceration or gangrene of the limb, with amputation occasionally being required. About 20% of people with PAD suffer from intermittent claudication (IC), which is muscular discomfort in the lower extremities induced by exertion and relieved by rest within 10 minutes; IC causes restriction of movement in daily life. Treatment for people with IC involves addressing lifestyle risk factors. Exercise is an important part of treatment, but supervised exercise programmes for individuals with IC have low engagement levels and high attrition rates. The use of mobile technologies has been suggested as a new way to engage people with IC in walking exercise interventions. The novelty of the intervention, low cost for the user, automation, and ease of access are some of the advantages mobile health (mhealth) technologies provide that give them the potential to be effective in boosting physical activity in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of mobile health (mhealth) technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, and also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent searches were carried out on 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people aged 18 years or over with symptomatic PAD and a clinical diagnosis of IC. We included RCTs comparing mhealth interventions to improve walking distance versus usual care (no intervention or non-exercise advice), exercise advice, or supervised exercise programmes. We excluded people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (Fontaine III and IV).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were change in absolute walking distance from baseline, change in claudication distance from baseline, amputation-free survival, revascularisation-free survival. Our secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, above-ankle amputation, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving a total of 614 participants with a clinical diagnosis of IC. The duration of intervention of the four included RCTs ranged from 3 to 12 months. Participants were randomised to either mhealth or control (usual care or supervised exercise programme). All four studies had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. The most prevalent risk of bias was in the area of performance bias, which was rated high risk as it is not possible to blind participants and personnel in this type of trial. Based on GRADE criteria, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low, due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and clinical inconsistency. Comparing mhealth with usual care, there was no clear evidence of an effect on absolute walking distance (mean difference 9.99 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.96 to 47.93; 2 studies, 503 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on change in claudication walking distance, amputation-free survival, or revascularisation-free survival. Only one study reported on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and found no clear difference between groups (risk ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 28.17; 1 study, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on major adverse limb events (MALE) or above-ankle amputations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mobile health technologies can be used to provide lifestyle interventions for people with chronic conditions, such as IC. We identified a limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found no clear difference between mhealth and usual care in improving absolute walking distance in people with IC; however, we judged the evidence to be low certainty. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to provide adequate statistical power to reliably evaluate the effects of mhealth technologies on walking distance in people with IC.