Harnessing Digital Health to Objectively Assess Functional Performance in Veterans with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

INTRODUCTION: An early detection of impaired functional performance is critical to enhance symptom management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, conventional functional measures based on walking assessments are often impractical for small clinics where the available space to administrate gait-based test is limited. This study examined the feasibility and effectiveness of an upper-extremity frailty meter (FM) in identifying digital measures of functional performance and assessing frailty in COPD patients. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with COPD (age = 68.8 ± 8.5 years, body mass index [BMI] = 28.7 ± 5.8 kg/m2) and 49 controls (age = 70.0 ± 3.0 years, BMI = 28.7 ± 6.1 kg/m2) were recruited. All participants performed a 20-s repetitive elbow flexion-extension test using a wrist-worn FM sensor. Functional performance was quantified by FM metrics, including speed (slowness), range of motion (rigidity), power (weakness), flexion and extension time (slowness), as well as speed and power reduction (exhaustion). Conventional functional measures, including timed-up-and-go test, gait and balance tests, and 5 repetition sit-to-stand test, were also performed. RESULTS: Compared to controls, COPD patients exhibited deteriorated performances in all conventional functional assessments (d = 0.64-1.26, p < 0.010) and all FM metrics (d = 0.45-1.54, p < 0.050). FM metrics had significant agreements with conventional assessment tools (|r| = 0.35-0.55, p ≤ 0.001). FM metrics efficiently identified COPD patients with pre-frailty and frailty (d = 0.82-2.12, p < 0.050). CONCLUSION: This study proposes the feasibility of using a 20-s repetitive elbow flexion-extension test and wrist-worn sensor-derived frailty metrics as an alternative and practical solution to evaluate functional performance in COPD patients. Its simplicity and low risk for test administration may also facilitate its application for remote patient monitoring. Furthermore, in settings where the administration of walking test is impractical, for example, when ventilator support is needed or space is limited, FM may be used as an alternative solution. Future studies are encouraged to use the FM to quantitatively monitor the progressive decline in functional performance and quantify outcomes of rehabilitation interventions.

Harnessing digital health to objectively assess cancer-related fatigue: The impact of fatigue on mobility performance.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors, which may have long-term effects on physical activity and quality of life. CRF is assessed by self-report or clinical observation, which may limit timely diagnosis and management. In this study, we examined the effect of CRF on mobility performance measured by a wearable pendant sensor. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial evaluating the benefit of exercise in cancer survivors with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). CRF status was classified based on a Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) score ≤ 33. Among 28 patients (age = 65.7±9.8 years old, BMI = 26.9±4.1kg/m2, sex = 32.9%female) with database variables of interest, twenty-one subjects (75.9%) were classified as non-CRF. Mobility performance, including behavior (sedentary, light, and moderate to vigorous activity (MtV)), postures (sitting, standing, lying, and walking), and locomotion (e.g., steps, postural transitions) were measured using a validated pendant-sensor over 24-hours. Baseline psychosocial, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), and motor-capacity assessments including gait (habitual speed, fast speed, and dual-task speed) and static balance were also performed. RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline clinical and psychosocial characteristics, except for body-mass index (BMI), FACT-G, FACIT-F, and FES-I (p<0.050). The groups did not differ on motor-capacity. However, the majority of mobility performance parameters were different between groups with large to very large effect size, Cohen's d ranging from 0.91 to 1.59. Among assessed mobility performance, the largest effect sizes were observed for sedentary-behavior (d = 1.59, p = 0.006), light-activity (d = 1.48, p = 0.009), and duration of sitting+lying (d = 1.46, p = 0.016). The largest correlations between mobility performance and FACIT-F were observed for sitting+lying (rho = -0.67, p<0.001) and the number of steps per day (rho = 0.60, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that sensor-based mobility performance monitoring could be considered as a potential digital biomarker for CRF assessment. Future studies warrant evaluating utilization of mobility performance to track changes in CRF over time, response to CRF-related interventions, and earlier detection of CRF.

Safety and efficacy of an endovascular-first approach to acute limb ischemia.

BACKGROUND: The optimal techniques to manage acute limb ischemia (ALI) remain unclear. Previous reports have suggested that the decreased morbidity and mortality of endovascular approaches are mitigated by the limited technical success rates relative to open or hybrid approaches for ALI. However, these data failed to include newer technologies that might improve the technical success rates. We, therefore, sought to describe the current outcomes for an endovascular-first approach to ALI. METHODS: We performed a single-center, single-arm, retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with ALI from 2015 to 2018. Technical success, limb salvage, survival, patency, and length of stay were quantified using Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of amputation-free survival. RESULTS: During the 3 years, 60 consecutive patients (39 men [65%]; median age, 65 years) presented with ALI. The Rutherford class was I in 15 patients (25%), IIa in 23 (38%), IIb in 13 (22%), and III in 9 patients (15%). Of the 60 patients, 34 had a history of previous failed ipsilateral revascularization (56%), including open bypass for 8 (13%), endovascular for 8 (13%), and both open and endovascular intervention for 18 (30%). The endovascular-first approach procedures included catheter-directed thrombolysis only (n = 19; 3%), catheter-directed thrombolysis plus aspiration and/or rheolytic thrombectomy (n = 19; 32%), and aspiration and/or rheolytic thrombectomy (n = 16; 26%). Six patients (10%) underwent covered stent placement only. The underlying occlusive process was most often thrombosis of a previous bypass graft or stent in 32 patients (53%), followed by native vessel thrombosis in 15 (25%). ALI had resulted from embolism in 13 patients (21.7%), including 2 (3%) with embolization to occlude a previous bypass graft or stent. Technical success was achieved in 58 patients (97%), with open conversion required in two patients (3%). At 30 days postoperatively, 52 patients (87%) survived, and 53 (88%) had successful limb salvage. Five patients (8%) had required four-compartment fasciotomy. No major hemorrhagic complications developed. The median length of stay overall and in the intensive care unit was 9 days (interquartile range, 4-14 days) and 2 days (interquartile range, 1-5 days), respectively. At 1 year, the KM estimates were as follows: amputation-free survival, 58% ± 0.08%; limb salvage, 74.3% ± 0.07%; and survival, 73.3% ± 0.07%. The 1-year KM estimates for primary and secondary patency were 39.4% ± 0.08% and 78.2% ± 0.07%, respectively. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, only age independently predicted for death and/or amputation at the last follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The current endovascular approaches to ALI have high technical success rates. Survival, limb salvage, perioperative complications, and length of stay were similar to those from previous reports of historical open cohorts. Further prospective, appropriately powered, multicenter cohort studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of endovascular vs open approaches to ALI.