In-Person Versus Remote 6-Minute Walk and Incremental Shuttle Walk Distances in Advanced Lung Disease.

BACKGROUND: Field-based walk tests conducted remotely may provide an alternative method to a facility-based assessment of exercise capacity for people with advanced lung disease. This prospective study evaluated the level of agreement in the distance walked between a 6-min walk test (6MWT) and an incremental shuttle walk test performed by using standard in-person procedures and test variations and settings. METHODS: Adults with advanced lung disease underwent 4 study visits: (i) one in-person standard 6MWT (30-m corridor) and one in-person treadmill 6MWT, (ii) a remote 6MWT in a home setting (10-m corridor), (iii) 2 in-person standard incremental shuttle walk tests (10-m corridor), and (iv) a remote incremental shuttle walk test in a home setting (10-m corridor). A medical-grade oximeter measured heart rate and oxygen saturation before, during, and for 2 min after the tests. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants were included (23 men [82%]; 64 (57-67) y old; 19 with interstitial lung disease [68%] and 9 with COPD [32%]; and 26 used supplemental oxygen (93%) [exertional [Formula: see text] of 0.46 ± 0.1]). There was no agreement between the tests. Greater walking distances were achieved with standard testing procedures: in-person 6MWT versus treadmill 6MWT (355 ± 68 vs 296 ± 97; P = .001; n = 28), in-person 6MWT versus remote 6MWT (349 ± 68 vs 293 ± 84; P = .001; n = 24), and in-person incremental shuttle walk test versus remote incremental shuttle walk test (216 ± 62 vs 195 ± 63; P = .03; n = 22). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the distance walked may have resulted from different track lengths, widths, and walking surfaces. This should be considered in test interpretation if tests are repeated under different conditions.

Feasibility of Virtual Assessment of Physical Frailty in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Single Center, Observational Study.

Objectives: To describe the feasibility of virtual assessments of physical frailty in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients using a modified Fried Frailty Index (mFFI) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and to describe the prevalence of frailty 12-months post-transplant using virtual assessment. Methods: Virtual assessments were performed using an e-questionnaire and a video-call for functional tests. Feasibility variables included: internet quality, video-call duration, presence of a companion, and adverse events. Results: 34 SOT recipients, median age 62 (46-67), 76% lung recipients, 47% female, were included. The video-call had a median duration of 12 minutes (10-15 min), without adverse events. A companion was present in 23 (68%) video-call assessments. Fifteen SOT recipients (44%) were classified as pre-frail by the mFFI, and none were frail. Three participants (8.8%) were classified as frail using the SPPB. Conclusion: Virtual frailty assessments can be used as an alternative to in-person assessments in SOT recipients.