Key result
Seismofit-estimated VO2 peak shows no association with CPET and overestimates values with high bias.
Why the study?
Preoperative CPET is not universally available, and Seismofit has not been validated as a non-exercise alternative for estimating VO2 peak in patients awaiting major abdominal cancer surgery.
Does Seismofit® accurately estimate VO2 peak compared to CPET in patients awaiting major abdominal cancer surgery?
Observational (n=33)
Single-blind
No
Does Seismofit® accurately estimate VO2 peak compared to CPET in patients awaiting major abdominal cancer surgery?
Seismofit® does not accurately estimate VO2 peak and tends to overestimate it with high bias compared to objective CPET in patients awaiting major abdominal cancer surgery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Seismofit® should not replace CPET for preoperative VO2 peak assessment; leaves open validation of alternative non-invasive tools.
Background Peak oxygen uptake (VO 2 peak) measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is commonly used to objectively assess fitness and inform risk stratification. Preoperative CPET is not always universally available. Seismofit® offers a noninvasive, non-exercise alternative for estimating VO 2 peak, though it has not been validated in patients awaiting major abdominal cancer surgery. Methods Prospective single-centre blinded observational study in patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary, colorectal, or gastro-oesophageal cancer undergoing preoperative assessment. Patients underwent Seismofit® assessment before routine CPET. Primary outcome was the relationship between Seismofit ®- estimated VO 2 peak and CPET-measured VO 2 peak. Secondary outcomes explored the relationship between Seismofit® and CPET for (i) bias and agreement limits; (ii) surgical subgroup; (iii) commonly reported CPET variables; (iv) patient acceptance. Results Thirty-three participants (median [interquartile range] age: 67 yr [58–75 yr]; 20 [61%] males) completed both CPET and Seismofit®. No linear association was found between Seismofit ®- estimated VO 2 peak and CPET-measured VO 2 peak: Pearson r =0.111 (95% confidence interval −0.242 to 0.437), R 2 =0.012, P =0.539. Compared with CPET, Seismofit® demonstrated a large bias (standard deviation) 12.8 (8.8); 95% limits of agreement (−4.5 to 30.0). No association existed between Seismofit ®- estimated VO 2 peak and CPET-measured VO 2 peak in the hepato-pancreato-biliary or gastro-oesophageal subgroup or between Seismofit®-estimated VO 2 peak and commonly reported CPET variables. Conclusions There was no evidence of linear association between Seismofit®-estimated VO 2 peak and objectively measured VO 2 peak by CPET in patients undergoing assessment for major abdominal cancer surgery. This finding was consistent across all subgroup and exploratory analyses. Seismofit® tended to overestimate VO 2 peak with a high degree of bias. Clinical trial registration NCT05831488.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tetlow et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Hepato-pancreato-biliary, colorectal, and gastro-oesophageal cancer (n=33). Seismofit® vs. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was evaluated on Linear association between Seismofit®-estimated VO2 peak and CPET-measured VO2 peak (Pearson r=0.111, 95% CI -0.242 to 0.437, p=0.539). Seismofit®-estimated VO2 peak demonstrated no linear association with objectively measured VO2 peak by CPET (Pearson r=0.111) and tended to overestimate VO2 peak with a high degree of bias.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: