Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Lachant, Daniel
• Kennedy, Ethan
• Derenze, Blaise
• Light, Allison
• Lachant, Michael
• White, R. James

Titel

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

Ist Teil von

• Chest, 2022-12, Vol.162 (6), p.1340-1348

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

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