Trial reportESC heart failure2024
Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY-HFpEF trial.
Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accelerometer vs. other activity measures in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY-HFpEF trial.ESC heart failure · 2024Trial
- Heart Failure in the Modern Era: A Narrative Overview of Recent Research from 2022-2025.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Redefining endpoints in heart failure clinical trials: the emerging role of wearable technologies in contemporary trial design.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Non-Invasive Wearable Technology to Predict Heart Failure Decompensation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advancements in Sensor Technology for Monitoring and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A scoping review on advancements in noninvasive wearable technology for heart failure management.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe relationship between accelerometry data and changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Physical Limitation Score (KCCQ-PLS) or 6 min walk test (6MWT) is not well understood. METHODS AND
resultsVITALITY-HFpEF accelerometry substudy (n = 69) data were assessed at baseline and 24 weeks. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between accelerometry activity and deterioration, improved, or unchanged KCCQ-PLS (≥8.33 and ≤ -4.17 points) and 6MWT (≥32 vs. ≤ -32 m). KCCQ-PLS score deteriorated in 16 patients, improved in 34, and was unchanged in 19. 6MWT deteriorated in 8 patients, improved in 21, and was unchanged in 19. Mean accelerometer wear was 21.4 (±2.1) h/day. Changes in hours active from baseline to 24 weeks were not significantly different among patients who exhibited deterioration, improvement, or no change in KCCQ-PLS [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18; P = 0.48] or 6MWT (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.91-1.60; P = 0.18). Similar lack of association was observed for other accelerometry metrics and change in KCCQ and 6MWT. These findings were unaffected when KCCQ and 6MWT were examined as continuous variables.
conclusionsAccelerometer-based activity measures did not correlate with subjective or objective standard measures of health status and functional capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Further investigation of their relationships to clinical outcomes is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.