Search

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate (HR) and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of HR and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of HR tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyse, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher-risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adver

Commercially available health technologies such as smartphones and smartwatches, activity trackers and eHealth applications, commonly referred to as wearables, are increasingly available and used both in the leisure and healthcare sector for pulse and fitness/activity tracking. The aim of the Position Paper is to identify specific barriers and knowledge gaps for the use of wearables, in particular for heart rate (HR) and activity tracking, in clinical cardiovascular healthcare to support their implementation into clinical care. The widespread use of HR and fitness tracking technologies provides unparalleled opportunities for capturing physiological information from large populations in the community, which has previously only been available in patient populations in the setting of healthcare provision. The availability of low-cost and high-volume physiological data from the community also provides unique challenges. While the number of patients meeting healthcare providers with data from wearables is rapidly growing, there are at present no clinical guidelines on how and when to use data from wearables in primary and secondary prevention. Technical aspects of HR tracking especially during activity need to be further validated. How to analyse, translate, and interpret large datasets of information into clinically applicable recommendations needs further consideration. While the current users of wearable technologies tend to be young, healthy and in the higher sociodemographic strata, wearables could potentially have a greater utility in the elderly and higher-risk population. Wearables may also provide a benefit through increased health awareness, democratization of health data and patient engagement. Use of continuous monitoring may provide opportunities for detection of risk factors and disease development earlier in the causal pathway, which may provide novel applications in both prevention and clinical research. However, wearables may also have potential adverse, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

[Abstract] With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF); 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021-2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.

Background: Heart failure (HF) patients presentwith a variety of symptoms at different stages of the disease, but the underlying pathophysiology still is unclear. Left atrial (LA) function might be tightly related to changes in patients' symptoms, more than morphological and anatomic heart features, measurable by ultrasound imaging technique. This study sought to investigate the correlation between LA function, assessed by Speckle Tracking Echocardiography (STE) and Quality of Life (QoL), assessed by theMinnesota Livingwith Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), in patients with chronic HF. Methods: Clinically stable HF outpatients (n = 369) were enrolled from 7 different international centres and underwent echocardiographic studies. Patients >75 years old and with atrial fibrillation were excluded. LA strain during reservoir phase (LASr) by STE was measured in all subjects by averaging the 6 atrial segments. LA size was assessed using biplane volume and 4-chamber area acquisition. Results: LASr strongly correlated with both MLHFQ total score (r = -0.87; p < 0.0001). Less significant correlations between MLHFQ and either LA volume or left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) were found (r = 0.28; p = 0.05 and r = 0.30; p = 0.01, respectively). No significant correlation was found between MLHFQ score, LVEF (r = -0.15; p = ns), E/E' ratio (r = 0.19; p = ns), and E/A ratio (r = 0.20; p = ns). Among all echocardiographic parameters analyzed, LASr presented the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.74) in predicting a poor QoL (>45), when compared with LV-GLS (AUC = 0.61), LA volume (AUC = 0.54) and E/e' ratio (AUC = 0.51). Conclusions: In patients with HF, irrespective of etiology, LA function strongly correlates with patients' QoL. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background: A standardized training platform helps to achieve reading harmonization in stress echocardiography (SE) beyondregional wall motion abnormalities (RWMA).Objective: To harmonize SE reading criteria across different laboratories.Methods: The core lab prepared for readers an obligatory 2-hour web-based learning module for 5 parameters: RWMA; B-lines;coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) based on peak diastolic flow velocity on the left anterior descending coronary artery;left ventricular contractile reserve (LVCR, from raw measurements of end-systolic volume, ESV); systolic arterial pulmonarypressure (from raw measurements of peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity, TRV). The quality control test consisted of 20cases selected by the coordinating center. The a priori determined pass threshold was 18/20 (≥90%) with intra-class correlationcoefficient between the coordinating lab and the peripheral reader >0.90.Results: The certification was completed by 84 readers for RWMA, 65 for B-lines, 30 for CFVR, 24 for ESV and 20 for TRV.The mean reading time per attempt was shorter for TRV (9±4 min), CFVR (13±6 min) and B-lines (17±3 min), intermediatefor ESV (24±7 min), and longer for RWMA (29±12 min, p <0.01). The success rate of the first attempt was higher forCFVR (85%), intermediate for TRV (75%) and B-lines (43 %), lower for ESV (35%) and lowest for RWMA (28 %, p <0.01)., Introducción: Una plataforma de entrenamiento estandarizada ayuda a armonizar la lectura de la ecocardiografía de estrés (EE) más allá de las anormalidades en la motilidad parietal regional (AMPR) Objetivo: Armonizar los criterios de lectura del EE a través de diferentes laboratorios. Métodos: El laboratorio central preparó para los lectores de ecocardiografía un módulo obligatorio de 5 parámetros basado en la web de 2 horas de duración: AMPR; líneas B, reserva de la velocidad de flujo coronario (RVFC) evaluada mediante la velocidad pico del flujo diastólico en la arteria coronaria descendente anterior; reserva contráctil ventricular izquierda (RCVI, evaluada a partir de mediciones crudas del volumen de fin de sístole, VFS); y presión sistólica de la arteria pulmonar (basada en mediciones crudas de la velocidad del jet de regurgitación tricuspídea, VRT). La prueba de control de calidad consistió en 20 casos seleccionados por el centro coordinador. El umbral de aprobación determinado a priori fue de 18/20 (≥ 90%) con un coeficiente de correlación intraclase entre el laboratorio coordinador y el lector periférico > 0.90 Resultados: Ochenta y cuatro lectores completaron la certificación para las AMPR, 65 para las líneas B, 30 para la RVFC, 24 para el VFS y 20 para la VRT. El tiempo de lectura medio por intento fue más corto para la VRT (9 ± 4 min), la RVFC (13 ± 6 min) y las líneas B (17 ± 3 min), intermedio para el VFS (24 ± 7 min), y más prolongado para las AMPR (29 ± 12 min, p < 0.01). La tasa de acierto del primer intento fue más alta para la RVFC (85%), intermedia para la VRT (75%) y las líneas B (43%), menor para el VFS (35%) y más baja para las AMPR (28%, p < 0.01). Conclusiones: La plataforma de aprendizaje basada en la web mejora las habilidades de interpretación de imágenes sin necesidad de un equipamiento de imágenes costoso o de estudiar un paciente. El camino hacia la certificación es más largo para las AMPR, intermedio para el VFS y más corto para la VRT