See the published version of this preprint at Perioperative Medicine.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Matt Morgan
University Hospital of Wales
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-7190
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Consumer wrist-worn wearable activity monitors are widely available, low cost and are able to provide a direct measurement of several markers of physical activity. Despite this, there is limited data on their use in perioperative risk prediction. We explored whether these wearables could accurately approximate metrics (anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake and peak work) derived using formalised cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients undergoing high-risk surgery.
Methods Patients scheduled for major elective intra-abdominal surgery and undergoing CPET were included. Physical activity levels were estimated through direct measures (step count, floors climbed and total distance travelled) obtained through continuous wear of a wrist worn activity monitor (Garmin Vivosmart HR+) for 7 days prior to surgery and self-report through completion of the short International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Correlations and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis explored the relationships between parameters provided by CPET and physical activity.
Device selection Our choice of consumer wearable device was made to maximise feasibility outcomes for this study. The Garmin Vivosmart HR+ had the longest battery life and best waterproof characteristics of the available low-cost devices.
Results Of 55 patients invited to participate, 49 (mean age 65.3 ± 13.6 years; 32 male) were enrolled; 37 provided complete wearable data for analyses and 36 patients provided full IPAQ data.
Floors climbed, total steps and total travelled as measured by the wearable device all showed moderate correlation with CPET parameters of peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) (R=0.57 (CI 0.29-0.76), R=0.59 (CI 0.31-0.77) and R=0.62 (CI 0.35-0.79) respectively), anaerobic threshold (R = 0.37 (CI 0.01-0.64), R = 0.39 (CI 0.04-0.66) and R = 0.42 (CI 0.07-0.68) respectively) and peak work (R = 0.56 (CI 0.27-0.75), R = 0.48 (CI 0.17-0.70) and R = 0.50 (CI 0.2-0.72) respectively).
Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) analysis for direct and self-reported measures of 7 day physical activity could accurately approximate the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2) and the anaerobic threshold. The area under these curves was 0.89 for VE/VCO2 and 0.91 for the anaerobic threshold. For peak VO2 and peak work, models fitted using just the wearable data were 0.93 for peak VO2 and 1.00 for peak work.
Conclusions Data recorded by the wearable device was able to consistently approximate CPET results, both with and without the addition of patient reported activity measures via IPAQ scores. This highlights the potential utility of wearable devices in formal assessment of physical functioning and suggests they could play a larger role in pre-operative risk assessment.
Ethics This study entitled “uSing wearable TEchnology to Predict perioperative high-riSk patient outcomes (STEPS)” gained favourable ethical opinion on 24/1/2017 from the Welsh Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 17/WA/0006. It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03328039.
Keywords
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, VO2, anaerobic threshold, perioperative medicine, wearable technology.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Perioperative Medicine.
Version 3
Posted 12 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 08 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Feb, 2021
Editorial decision: Accept
On 08 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 04 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Feb, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 04 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 04 Feb, 2021
No comments provided
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 20 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 20 Jan, 2021
Version (no preprint)
Posted 08 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 01 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 01 Jan, 2021
This version was not preprinted
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 06 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Nov, 2020
First submitted
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Nov, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Perioperative Medicine.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Matt Morgan
University Hospital of Wales
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2357-7190
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Perioperative Medicine.
Version 3
Posted 12 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 08 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Feb, 2021
Editorial decision: Accept
On 08 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 04 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Feb, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 04 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 04 Feb, 2021
No comments provided
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 20 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 20 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 20 Jan, 2021
Version (no preprint)
Posted 08 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 01 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Jan, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 01 Jan, 2021
Editor invited
On 01 Jan, 2021
This version was not preprinted
No comments provided
Review #1 received
Received 06 Dec, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 04 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Nov, 2020
First submitted
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 12 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Nov, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Perioperative Medicine.
Background Consumer wrist-worn wearable activity monitors are widely available, low cost and are able to provide a direct measurement of several markers of physical activity. Despite this, there is limited data on their use in perioperative risk prediction. We explored whether these wearables could accurately approximate metrics (anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen uptake and peak work) derived using formalised cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients undergoing high-risk surgery.
Methods Patients scheduled for major elective intra-abdominal surgery and undergoing CPET were included. Physical activity levels were estimated through direct measures (step count, floors climbed and total distance travelled) obtained through continuous wear of a wrist worn activity monitor (Garmin Vivosmart HR+) for 7 days prior to surgery and self-report through completion of the short International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Correlations and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis explored the relationships between parameters provided by CPET and physical activity.
Device selection Our choice of consumer wearable device was made to maximise feasibility outcomes for this study. The Garmin Vivosmart HR+ had the longest battery life and best waterproof characteristics of the available low-cost devices.
Results Of 55 patients invited to participate, 49 (mean age 65.3 ± 13.6 years; 32 male) were enrolled; 37 provided complete wearable data for analyses and 36 patients provided full IPAQ data.
Floors climbed, total steps and total travelled as measured by the wearable device all showed moderate correlation with CPET parameters of peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) (R=0.57 (CI 0.29-0.76), R=0.59 (CI 0.31-0.77) and R=0.62 (CI 0.35-0.79) respectively), anaerobic threshold (R = 0.37 (CI 0.01-0.64), R = 0.39 (CI 0.04-0.66) and R = 0.42 (CI 0.07-0.68) respectively) and peak work (R = 0.56 (CI 0.27-0.75), R = 0.48 (CI 0.17-0.70) and R = 0.50 (CI 0.2-0.72) respectively).
Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) analysis for direct and self-reported measures of 7 day physical activity could accurately approximate the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (VE/VCO2) and the anaerobic threshold. The area under these curves was 0.89 for VE/VCO2 and 0.91 for the anaerobic threshold. For peak VO2 and peak work, models fitted using just the wearable data were 0.93 for peak VO2 and 1.00 for peak work.
Conclusions Data recorded by the wearable device was able to consistently approximate CPET results, both with and without the addition of patient reported activity measures via IPAQ scores. This highlights the potential utility of wearable devices in formal assessment of physical functioning and suggests they could play a larger role in pre-operative risk assessment.
Ethics This study entitled “uSing wearable TEchnology to Predict perioperative high-riSk patient outcomes (STEPS)” gained favourable ethical opinion on 24/1/2017 from the Welsh Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 17/WA/0006. It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03328039.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...