Despite an enormous body of evidence supporting the positive effects of exercise, physical activity levels are lower in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) than in age-matched controls. 1 It has been shown that walking speed is a good indicator for increased risk of cardiovascular death. In a study with over 4000 participants aged 65e85, it was found that those in the lowest third of walking speed had a 44% increased risk of death compared with those in the upper thirds. 2 Walking advice alone is ineffective, as patients are usually non-compliant because of lack of support and motivation. 3 With this sort of convincing data available, it is possible to see that increasing the activity of these patients is of paramount importance. Wearable activity monitors are increasingly being used to objectively monitor physical activity in research studies within the field of exercise science. Calibration and validation of these devices are vital to obtaining accurate data. Bassett and Rowlands (2012) 4 compared six different activity monitors in a study where each patient wore six different monitors at a time (one of these was the Dynaport min mov), and performed an hour’s worth of activities which were then compared for accuracy. Three were found to be more accurate (the Dynaport was found to be particularly accurate at walking speeds). Tri-axial activity monitors are getting more and more sophisticated.They can track how many steps taken, stairs climbed, distance travelled, calories burned, and even quality of sleep. Some measure heart rate, and have altimeters for greater accuracy. Most sync with mobile phones or computers, and have websites to enable performance to be studied. Some have red lights that turn green when patients have reached a daily target of activity, and an algorithm that increases the amount of work they have to do to obtain a green light. The author attempts to validate the Dynaport move monitor. 5 Patients were filmed during a routine hospital visit (wearing a Dynoport move monitor). Seven activities were identified and data collected. Analysis showed that the move monitor correlated best for walking activities, both real life walking and treadmill walking, and worst for ‘shuffling’ or changing position activities (low sensitivity 46.2%). The main drawback of the Dynaport move monitor is its cost. At 690 Euros it is one of the most expensive on the market, and yet still fails to distinguish accurately between lying and sitting, sitting and standing, and shuffling activity. Most of the other monitors available vary from 75 to 200 Euros, a much more affordable amount for use with patients. Walking on a treadmill (to record claudication distance maximum walking distance) is an internationally respected gold standard exercise test for these patients, but bears little similarity to the exercise that patients experience in their daily lives.The author suggests that activity monitoring may be a more effective way of assessing the exercise capacity of these patients. There is a need for more research in this area, and this paper highlights the problems of validating these new monitoring ‘tools’. Research comparing patient compliance, looking at the use of activity monitors instead of pedometers (which have already been shown to increase patient compliance with exercise programmes 6 )i s the next logical step. Activity monitors can give positive feedback to the patient immediately (by way of rewards using an app on mobile phones, or lights that change colour when targets are reached, and analysis of performance), and may therefore be useful as a way of motivating patients with peripheral arterial disease to take more exercise.
Read full abstract