Validating the Fitbit Charge 4© wearable activity monitor for use in physical activity interventions

OBJECTIVES: Commercially available wearable activity monitors can promote physical activity behaviour. Clinical trials typically quantify physical activity with research grade activity monitors prior to testing interventions utilising commercially available wearable activity monitors aimed at increasing step count. Therefore, it is important to test the agreement of these two types of activity monitors.OBJECTIVES: Observational.METHODS: Thirty adults (20-65 years, n = 19 females) were provided a Fitbit Charge 4©. To determine reliability using an intraclass correlation coefficient, two, one-minute bouts of treadmill walking were performed at a self-selected pace. Subsequently, participants wore both an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and the Fitbit for seven days. To determine agreement, statistical equivalence and the mean absolute percentage error were calculated and represented graphically with a Bland-Altman plot. Ordinary least products regression was performed to identify fixed or proportional bias.RESULTS: The Fitbit showed 'good' step count reliability on the treadmill (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.53-0.87, p &lt; 0.001). In free-living however, it overestimated step count when compared to the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT (mean absolute percentage error = 26.02 % ± 14.63). Measurements did not fall within the ± 10 % equivalence region and proportional bias was apparent (slope 95 % CI = 1.09-1.35).CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Charge 4© is reliable when measuring step count on a treadmill. However, there is an overestimation of daily steps in free-living environments which may falsely indicate compliance with physical activity recommendations.</p

Safety of home-based exercise for people with intermittent claudication:A systematic review

Intermittent claudication (IC) is a classic symptom of peripheral artery disease, with first line treatment being supervised exercise therapy (SET). Despite this, SET is frequently underutilised, and adherence is often poor. An alternative option are home-based exercise programmes (HBEP). Although HBEPs are well tolerated, to the authors’ knowledge, no research has assessed their safety. The aim of this review was to assess the safety of HBEPs in people living with IC. We performed an electronic search of the MEDLINE, CINHAL and Cochrane Library databases. The main parameter of interest was complication rate, calculated as the number of related adverse events per patient-hours. Sub-analysis was undertaken to determine differences in safety for studies that did and did not include pre-exercise cardiac screening, and for studies with exercise at low, moderate and high levels of claudication pain. Our search strategy identified 8693 results, of which 27 studies were included for full review. Studies included 1642 participants completing 147,810 patient-hours of home-based exercise. Four related adverse events were reported, three of which were cardiac in origin, giving an all cause complication rate of one event per 36,953 patient-hours. Three of these events occurred following exercise to high levels of claudication pain, and one occurred with pain-free exercise. All four events occurred in studies without cardiac screening. Based on the low number of related adverse events, HBEPs appear to be a safe method of exercise prescription for people with IC. Our results strengthen the rationale for providing alternative exercise options for this population. PROSPERO registration: CRD4202125458

A systematic review of rehabilitation in chronic heart failure:evaluating the reporting of exercise interventions

Abstract A large body of research supports the use of exercise to improve symptoms, quality of life, and physical function in patients with chronic heart failure. Previous reviews have focused on reporting outcomes of exercise interventions such as cardiorespiratory fitness. However, none have critically examined exercise prescription. The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and application of exercise principles in randomised control trials of exercise training in patients with chronic heart failure. A systematic review of exercise intervention RCTs in patients with CHF, using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), was undertaken. The Ovid Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus/Web of Science, and Cochrane Library and Health Technology Assessment Databases were searched from 2000 to June 2020. Prospective RCTs in which patients with CHF were randomized to a structured exercise programme were included. No limits were placed on the type or duration of exercise structured exercise programme or type of CHF (i.e. preserved or reduced ejection fraction). We included 143 studies, comprising of 181 different exercise interventions. The mean CERT score was 10 out of 19, with no study achieving a score of 19. Primarily, details were missing regarding motivational strategies, home‐based exercise components, and adherence/fidelity to the intervention. Exercise intensity was the most common principle of exercise prescription missing from intervention reporting. There was no improvement in the reporting of exercise interventions with time (R2 = 0.003). Most RCTs of exercise training in CHF are reported with insufficient detail to allow for replication, limiting the translation of evidence to clinical practice. We encourage authors to provide adequate details when reporting future interventions. Where journal word counts are restrictive, we recommend using supplementary material or publishing trial protocols prior to beginning the study

Home-based Circuit Training and Community Walking for Intermittent Claudication

Background: Supervised exercise training is recommended for people with peripheral artery disease (PAD), yet it remains underutilized. Home-based exercise programs (HBEPs) are a potential alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full scale trial of a 12-week HBEP for people living with symptomatic PAD. Methods: In a randomized feasibility trial, patients with intermittent claudication were allocated to either an HBEP or a nonexercise control. The HBEP group was given a Fitbit to use during a 12-week exercise program comprising of personalized step goals and a resistance-based circuit to be undertaken at home twice weekly. The primary outcome was feasibility, assessed via eligibility, recruitment, attrition, tolerability, and adherence. Acceptability was assessed via semistructured interviews. Secondary analysis was undertaken to determine the feasibility of collecting clinical outcome data. Results: 188 people were screened, 133 were eligible (70.7%), 30 were recruited (22.6%) and one withdrew (3.33%). Mean adherence to the daily step goal was 53.5% (range = 29.8–90.5%), and 58.6% of prescribed circuits were completed of which 56.4% were at the desired intensity. Six adverse events were recorded, 3 of which were related to study involvement. No significant differences were observed in exploratory outcomes. Small clinically important differences were seen in walking speed and pain-free treadmill walking distance which should be confirmed or refuted in a larger trial. Conclusions: The HBEP was feasible and well tolerated, with successful recruitment and minimal attrition. The intervention was acceptable, with walking seen as more enjoyable than circuit exercise. The WALKSTRONG program may be suitable for those who will not, or cannot, take part in supervised exercise outside of the home.</p

Is It Really Home-Based?:A Commentary on the Necessity for Accurate Definitions across Exercise and Physical Activity Programmes

Background: There is wide discrepancy in how published research defines and reports home-based exercise programmes. Studies consisting of fundamentally different designs have been labelled as home-based, making searching for relevant literature challenging and time consuming. This issue has been further highlighted by an increased demand for these programmes following the COVID-19 pandemic and associated government-imposed lockdowns. Purpose: To examine what specifically constitutes home-based exercise by: 1) developing definitions for a range of terms used when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes and 2) providing examples to contextualise these definitions for use when reporting exercise and physical activity programmes. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify previous attempts to define home-based exercise programmes. A working document, including initial definitions and examples were developed, which were then discussed between six experts for further refinement. Results: We generated definitions for universal key terms within three domains (and subdomains) of programme design: location (home-based, community/centre-based, or clinical setting), prescription (structured or unstructured) and delivery (supervised, facilitated, or unsupervised). Examples for possible combinations of design terms were produced. Conclusions: Definitions will provide consistency when using reporting tools and the intention is to discuss the issues presented as part of a Delphi study. This is of paramount importance due to the predicted increase in emerging research regarding home-based exercise

Validity and reliability of short‐term heart‐rate variability from disposable electrocardiography leads

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Single‐use electrocardiography (ECG) leads have been developed to reduce healthcare‐associated infection. This study compared the validity and reliability of short‐term heart rate variability (HRV) obtained from single‐use disposable ECG leads. METHODS: Thirty healthy subjects (33 ± 10 years; 9 females) underwent 5‐min resting HRV assessments using disposable (single use) ECG cable and wire system (Kendall DL™ Cardinal Health) and a standard, reusable ECG leads (CardioExpress, Spacelabs Healthcare). RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between disposable and reusable ECG leads was for the time domain [R‐R interval (ms); 0.99 (0.91, 1.00)], the root mean square of successive normal R‐R interval differences (RMSSD) (ms); 0.91 (0.76, 0.96), the SD of normal‐to‐normal R‐R intervals (SDNN) (ms); 0.91 (0.68, 0.97) and frequency domain [low‐frequency (LF) normalized units (nu); 0.90 (0.79, 0.95), high frequency (HF) nu; 0.91 (0.80, 0.96), LF power (ms(2)); 0.89 (0.62, 0.96), HF power (ms(2)); 0.90 (0.72, 0.96)] variables. The mean difference and upper and lower limits of agreement between disposable and reusable leads for time‐ and frequency‐domain variables were acceptable. Analysis of repeated measures using disposable leads demonstrated excellent reproducibility (ICC 95% CI) for R‐R interval (ms); 0.93 (0.85, 0.97), RMSSD (ms); 0.93 (0.85, 0.97), SDNN (ms); 0.88 (0.75, 0.95), LF power (ms(2)); 0.87 (0.72, 0.94), and HF power (ms(2)); 0.88 (0.73, 0.94) with coefficient of variation ranging from 2.2% to 5% (p > 0.37 for all variables). CONCLUSION: Single‐use Kendall DL™ ECG leads demonstrate a valid and reproducible tool for the assessment of HRV

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study

Background: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. Methods: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. Results: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). Conclusion: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur