Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY‐HFpEF trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY‐HFpEF trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY‐HFpEF trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY‐HFpEF trial
2024
Overview
Aims The relationship between accelerometry data and changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire‐Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ‐PLS) or 6 min walk test (6MWT) is not well understood. Methods and results VITALITY‐HFpEF accelerometry substudy (n = 69) data were assessed at baseline and 24 weeks. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between accelerometry activity and deterioration, improved, or unchanged KCCQ‐PLS (≥8.33 and ≤ −4.17 points) and 6MWT (≥32 vs. ≤ −32 m). KCCQ‐PLS score deteriorated in 16 patients, improved in 34, and was unchanged in 19. 6MWT deteriorated in 8 patients, improved in 21, and was unchanged in 19. Mean accelerometer wear was 21.4 (±2.1) h/day. Changes in hours active from baseline to 24 weeks were not significantly different among patients who exhibited deterioration, improvement, or no change in KCCQ‐PLS [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–1.18; P = 0.48] or 6MWT (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91–1.60; P = 0.18). Similar lack of association was observed for other accelerometry metrics and change in KCCQ and 6MWT. These findings were unaffected when KCCQ and 6MWT were examined as continuous variables. Conclusions Accelerometer‐based activity measures did not correlate with subjective or objective standard measures of health status and functional capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Further investigation of their relationships to clinical outcomes is required.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
