Abstract
Introduction The value of exercise cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown in many clinical scenarios. We have developed a MR-compatible exercise apparatus and aim to validate it against the reference standard MR-conventional ergometer.
Methods The novel device consisted of two half-pipes fixed to a wooden base, with participants wearing knee-length socks with a 0.5kg weight in each sock. Increased workload was achieved by increasing the rate of alternating leg flexion and extension in time with a bleep sound of increasing frequency.
Twenty subjects (10 healthy volunteers, 10 patients with pulmonary hypertension) performed two CMR-augmented cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CMR-CPET) using the novel exercise apparatus and a conventional ergometer in a randomised order.
Results Comparing peak metrics elicited on both exercise devices, there was a moderate correlation in peak oxygen consumption (VO2, r=0.86, P<0.001), cardiac output (CO, r=0.66, P=0.002), stroke volume (SV, r=0.75, P<0.001), peak heart rate (HR, r=0.65, P=0.002) and peak arteriovenous oxygen content gradient (ΔavO2, r=0.71, P<0.001). However, all metrics (except peak SV) were significantly lower from the novel device. Both devices were able to elicit statistically significant differences in VO2, HR and RVEF between patients and healthy subjects (P≤0.036).
Conclusions We have created a simple, easy to use and affordable exercise apparatus for CMR environment. This may encourage greater dissemination of exercise CMR in clinical and research practice.
Competing Interest Statement
Funding Dr D.S.K. is supported by a British Heart Foundation (BHF) Clinical Research Leave Fellowship (FS/CRLF/20/23004) and by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Prof. M.F. is supported by a BHF Intermediate Fellowship (FS/18/21/33447). Declaration of interest There are no conflicts of interest in relation to the work in this manuscript. Non-conflicting relationships with industry are detailed below: D.S.K. reports consulting fees, speaker bureau fees and research funding from Johnson & Johnson. T.K. reports speaker bureau fees from Janssen and Inari. M.F. reports consulting income from Intellia, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Eidos, Prothena, Alnylam, Alexion, Janssen and Ionis. J.G.C. reports consulting fees from Acceleron, consulting and speaker bureau fees from Bayer, GSK and Johnson & Johnson, and research funding from Johnson & Johnson. R.V. reports support for attending meetings and travel from Janssen.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by UK National Health Service, Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee and the study conformed to the declaration of Helsinki (IRAS project ID 226101; REC reference 17/LO/1499, National Health Service Health Research Authority UK CRN 058274).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are incorporated into the article and its online supplementary material. We do not have local ethical approval to make the study dataset publicly available. However, the study dataset will be made available to other researchers for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedure upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to institutional and ethical committee approvals.
