Why the study?
CPET is the gold standard for determining VO2peak but is time-consuming and requires specialized equipment, leading to the development of resting seismocardiography estimation whose validity and reliability needed investigation.
Does the Seismofit device accurately estimate V.O2peak at rest in healthy adults compared to gold standard cardiopulmonary exercise testing?
Cross-Sectional (n=20)
Randomized testing order
No
Does the Seismofit device accurately estimate V.O2peak at rest in healthy adults compared to gold standard cardiopulmonary exercise testing?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
While the Seismofit is highly reliable for measuring resting V.O2peak, its significant systematic underestimation compared to CPET indicates it needs algorithmic improvements before widespread clinical use.
BackgroundLow cardiorespiratory fitness (ie, peak oxygen consumption [V.O2peak]) is associated with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality and is recognized as an important clinical tool in the assessment of patients. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is the gold standard procedure for determination of V.O2peak but has methodological challenges as it is time-consuming and requires specialized equipment and trained professionals. Seismofit is a chest-mounted medical device for estimating V.O2peak at rest using seismocardiography.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of Seismofit V.O2peak estimation in a healthy population.MethodsOn 3 separate days, 20 participants (10 women) underwent estimations of V.O2peak with Seismofit (×2) and Polar Fitness Test (PFT) in randomized order and performed a graded CPET on a cycle ergometer with continuous pulmonary gas exchange measurements.ResultsSeismofit V.O2peak showed a significant bias of –3.1 ± 2.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 (mean ± 95% confidence interval) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of ±10.8 mL·min–1·kg–1 compared to CPET. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 12.0%. Seismofit V.O2peak had a coefficient of variation of 4.5% ± 1.3% and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 between test days and a bias of 0.0 ± 0.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 with 95% LoA of ±1.6 mL·min–1·kg–1 in test–retest. In addition, Seismofit showed a 2.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 smaller difference in 95% LoA than PFT compared to CPET.ConclusionThe Seismofit is highly reliable in its estimation of V.O2peak. However, based on the measurement error and MAPE >10%, the Seismofit V.O2peak estimation model needs further improvement to be considered for use in clinical settings. Low cardiorespiratory fitness (ie, peak oxygen consumption [V.O2peak]) is associated with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality and is recognized as an important clinical tool in the assessment of patients. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) is the gold standard procedure for determination of V.O2peak but has methodological challenges as it is time-consuming and requires specialized equipment and trained professionals. Seismofit is a chest-mounted medical device for estimating V.O2peak at rest using seismocardiography. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of Seismofit V.O2peak estimation in a healthy population. On 3 separate days, 20 participants (10 women) underwent estimations of V.O2peak with Seismofit (×2) and Polar Fitness Test (PFT) in randomized order and performed a graded CPET on a cycle ergometer with continuous pulmonary gas exchange measurements. Seismofit V.O2peak showed a significant bias of –3.1 ± 2.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 (mean ± 95% confidence interval) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of ±10.8 mL·min–1·kg–1 compared to CPET. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 12.0%. Seismofit V.O2peak had a coefficient of variation of 4.5% ± 1.3% and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95 between test days and a bias of 0.0 ± 0.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 with 95% LoA of ±1.6 mL·min–1·kg–1 in test–retest. In addition, Seismofit showed a 2.4 mL·min–1·kg–1 smaller difference in 95% LoA than PFT compared to CPET. The Seismofit is highly reliable in its estimation of V.O2peak. However, based on the measurement error and MAPE >10%, the Seismofit V.O2peak estimation model needs further improvement to be considered for use in clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults (n=20). Seismofit V.O2peak estimation vs. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) was evaluated on Peak oxygen consumption (V.O2peak) estimation bias (Bias -3.1 mL/min/kg, 95% CI -5.5 to -0.7, p=<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: