4.3 Article

The role of an activity monitor in the objective evaluation of patients with pulmonary hypertension

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 119-125

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12495

关键词

activities of daily living; activity monitor; energy expenditure; physical activity level; pulmonary hypertension; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) show no symptoms at rest, but symptoms are triggered by physical activities. Objectives: The primary aim of our study was to assess physical activity of patients with PH by using an activity monitor. The secondary aim was to evaluate the correlation between the activity monitor parameters and 6-min walk distance (6MWD), activity of daily living (ADL), quality of life, WHO functional class and PH classification. Methods: Thirty-eight patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and seven patients with chronic thromboembolic PH were included in the study. Physical activity was assessed using a SenseWear arm band. A 6-min walk test was performed. Daily living activities were assessed using the nottingham extended activity of daily living index' (NEADL). For quality of life assessments, Minnesota living with heart failure' (MLHF) and Short form-36' (SF-36) surveys were used. Results: Physical activity, exercise capacity, quality of life and contribution to ADL were lower in patients with PH. These data were associated with the 6MWD, quality of life and ADL index scores. We also found weak and moderate correlations between activity monitor data and SF-36 sub-group scores, MLHF and NEADL scores (P < 0.05). For the group with PAH, idiopathic PAH patients had more exercise capacity and total energy expenditure compared with patients with scleroderma-associated PAH. Conclusion: Correlation between activity monitor data and 6MWD, most of SF-36 sub-group scores, MLHF scores and NEADL index scores suggest that activity monitor can be used in the evaluation of patients with PH.

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

4.3
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