4.5 Article

Counting Steps: A New Way to Monitor Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

期刊

LUNG
卷 197, 期 4, 页码 501-508

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-019-00239-y

关键词

Pulmonary hypertension; Accelerometer; Physical activity; Six-minute walk test; Health-related quality of life

资金

  1. United Therapeutics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale Activity levels in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have correlated with surrogate markers of disease severity. It is not known whether physical activity measures are useful in monitoring patients with PAH. Objectives This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether change in physical activity measured by an accelerometer correlates with changes in six-minute walk distance (6MWD), echocardiographic parameters, NT-proBNP, or health-related quality-of-life measures (HRQOL). Methods The study design was a prospective, observational study in subjects with prevalent PAH. Subjects wore a wrist-worn accelerometer (Fitbit Charge HR (R)) between two outpatient visits. Daily step count and activity levels were recorded, and the change over time was correlated with changes in 6MWD, echocardiographic parameters, HRQOL, and NT-proBNP. Measurements and Main Results 30 subjects were enrolled, of which 20 patients had adequate accelerometer data to be analyzed over the study duration. The mean duration of follow-up was 136.4 +/-(47.3) days. The change in daily step count correlated with a change in 6MWD (r 0.43, p 0.05). Changes in duration spent in moderately active (r 0.52, p 0.02), lightly active (r 0.48, p 0.05), and sedentary activity levels (r -0.54, p 0.02) correlated with a change in HRQOL. Changes in activity levels did not correlate with echocardiographic measures or NT-pro BNP. Conclusions Changes in daily step count and time spent at fairly active, lightly active, and sedentary activity levels correlate with changes in 6MWD, and HRQOL in subjects with PAH suggesting that accelerometry may be a useful monitoring tool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据