» Articles » PMID: 30702433

Assessment of Physical Activity by Wearable Technology During Rehabilitation After Cardiac Surgery: Explorative Prospective Monocentric Observational Cohort Study

Overview
Date 2019 Feb 1
PMID 30702433
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Wearable technology is finding its way into clinical practice. Physical activity describes patients' functional status after cardiac surgery and can be monitored remotely by using dedicated trackers.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the progress of physical activity in cardiac rehabilitation by using wearable fitness trackers in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery by either the conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) or the robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB). We hypothesized faster recovery of physical activity after RA-MIDCAB in the first weeks after discharge as compared to OPCAB.

Methods: Patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB or OPCAB were included in the study. Each patient received a Fitbit Charge HR (Fitbit Inc, San Francisco, CA) physical activity tracker following discharge. Rehabilitation progress was assessed by measuring the number of steps and physical activity level daily. The physical activity level was calculated as energy expenditure divided by the basic metabolic rate.

Results: A total of 10 RA-MIDCAB patients with a median age of 68 (min, 55; max, 83) years and 12 OPCAB patients with a median age of 69 (min, 50; max, 82) years were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable except for body mass index (RA-MIDCAB: 26 kg/m²; min, 22; max, 28 versus OPCAB: 29 kg/m²; min, 27; max, 33; P<.001). Intubation time (P<.05) was significantly lower in the RA-MIDCAB group. A clear trend, although not statistically significant, was observed towards a higher number of steps in RA-MIDCAB patients in the first week following discharge.

Conclusions: RA-MIDCAB patients have an advantage in recovery in the first weeks of revalidation, which is reflected by the number of steps and physical activity level measured by the Fitbit Charge HR, as compared to OPCAB patients. However, unsupervised assessment of daily physical activity varied widely and could have consequences with regard to the use of these trackers as research tools.

Citing Articles

One-year postprocedural quality of life following mitral valve surgery: data from The Netherlands heart registration.

Heuts S, Olsthoorn J, Houterman S, Roefs M, Maessen J, Sardari Nia P Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024; .

PMID: 38521547 PMC: 11021809. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivae051.


Use of a mobile health application by adult non-congenital cardiac surgery patients: A feasibility study.

Ragheb S, Chudyk A, Kent D, Dave M, Hiebert B, Schultz A PLOS Digit Health. 2023; 1(6):e0000055.

PMID: 36812537 PMC: 9931304. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000055.


Functional recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty: subjective vs. objective assessment?.

Wainwright T, Kehlet H Acta Orthop. 2022; 93:739-741.

PMID: 36111867 PMC: 9479559. DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2022.4567.


Using Smartwatches to Observe Changes in Activity During Recovery From Critical Illness Following COVID-19 Critical Care Admission: 1-Year, Multicenter Observational Study.

Hunter A, Leckie T, Coe O, Hardy B, Fitzpatrick D, Goncalves A JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022; 9(2):e25494.

PMID: 35417402 PMC: 9063865. DOI: 10.2196/25494.


Robotic Cardiac Surgery in Europe: Status 2020.

Cerny S, Oosterlinck W, Onan B, Singh S, Segers P, Bolcal C Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 8:827515.

PMID: 35127877 PMC: 8811127. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.827515.


References
1.
Leth S, Hansen J, Nielsen O, Dinesen B . Evaluation of Commercial Self-Monitoring Devices for Clinical Purposes: Results from the Future Patient Trial, Phase I. Sensors (Basel). 2017; 17(1). PMC: 5298782. DOI: 10.3390/s17010211. View

2.
Piwek L, Ellis D, Andrews S, Joinson A . The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers. PLoS Med. 2016; 13(2):e1001953. PMC: 4737495. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001953. View

3.
Poston R, Tran R, Collins M, Reynolds M, Connerney I, Reicher B . Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg. 2008; 248(4):638-46. PMC: 2649713. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818a15b5. View

4.
Lapierre H, Chan V, Sohmer B, Mesana T, Ruel M . Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 40(4):804-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2011.01.066. View

5.
Rogers C, Pike K, Angelini G, Reeves B, Glauber M, Ferrarini M . An open randomized controlled trial of median sternotomy versus anterolateral left thoracotomy on morbidity and health care resource use in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: the Sternotomy Versus Thoracotomy (STET) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 146(2):306-16.e1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.04.020. View