Exploring telehealth interventions to monitor rehabilitation in patients with peripheral artery disease.

Peripheral artery disease is a manifestation of systemic atherosclerosis, and these patients often have claudication pain in the legs during activity. This leads to generally adopting an inactive lifestyle; hence, even small changes in physical activity could reduce the risk of an adverse cardiovascular event. For patients with peripheral artery disease compliance with non-invasive interventions like assistive devices and long-term exercise therapy is important for improved health outcomes. Benefits to patients can only be measured if patients with peripheral artery disease adhere to the intervention and barriers are identified with improved solutions. The effect of mobile health including pedometers and smartphone technological applications in motivating the patient to continue adhering to the intervention and persist in physical activity is a new venture to be explored.

A biomechanical perspective on walking in patients with peripheral artery disease.

The most common symptom of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is intermittent claudication, which consists of debilitating leg pain during walking. In clinical settings, the presence of PAD is often noninvasively evaluated using the ankle-brachial index and imaging of the arterial supply. Furthermore, various questionnaires and functional tests are commonly used to measure the severity and negative effect of PAD on quality of life. However, these evaluations only provide information on vascular insufficiency and severity of the disease, but not regarding the complex mechanisms underlying walking impairments in patients with PAD. Biomechanical analyses using motion capture and ground reaction force measurements can provide insight into the underlying mechanisms to walking impairments in PAD. This review analyzes the application of biomechanics tools to identify gait impairments and their clinical implications on rehabilitation of patients with PAD. A total of 18 published journal articles focused on gait biomechanics in patients with PAD were studied. This narriative review shows that the gait of patients with PAD is impaired from the first steps that a patient takes and deteriorates further after the onset of claudication leg pain. These results point toward impaired muscle function across the ankle, knee, and hip joints during walking. Gait analysis helps understand the mechanisms operating in PAD and could also facilitate earlier diagnosis, better treatment, and slower progression of PAD.

Long-term use of an ankle-foot orthosis intervention in patients with peripheral artery disease using the integrated promoting action on research implementation in health services (i-PARIHS) framework.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a cardiovascular disease that limits patients' walking ability. Persistent ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) use may increase the distance patients can walk as well as physical activity. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the implementation and patients' perspectives related to the use or disuse of the AFO intervention six months post-intervention. This study was guided by a semi-structured interview and survey based on the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) constructs. DESIGN: A convergent mixed methods design was used to evaluate participants' perceptions six months following a three-month AFO intervention. A survey and semi-structured questionnaire based on the i-PARIHS constructs were administered and analyzed. SETTING: Vascular surgery clinic and biomechanics research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 7; male, 100%; age, 71.9 ± 0.6.7y; body mass index, 29.0 ± 0.5.5; ankle brachial index 0.50 ± 0.17) with claudication completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: A certified orthotist fit participants with an AFO that was worn for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of the survey. RESULTS: The highest positive ratings were seen in the dimensions of usability and cost-effectiveness. The patients found the AFO device and instructions to wear, easy when starting the intervention and there were no out-of-pocket costs. The lower scores and challenges faced with observability and relative advantage domains indicated issues related to motivation for sustained use of the AFO. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers associated with AFO function that prevent common activities and poor health seem to be the biggest issue for not wanting to wear the AFO after the 3-month intervention. Addressing patients' perceptions and challenges to wearing the AFO is essential to increasing compliance and physical activity. Future research should concentrate on understanding the compatibility of orthotic device interventions with the subject's lifestyle. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT02902211.

Patient Compliance With Wearing Lower Limb Assistive Devices: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to identify information on compliance with wearing orthoses and other supportive devices, to discuss the barriers to adherence, and to suggest strategies for improvement based on these findings. METHODS: Online databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles about patients' compliance with regard to lower limb assistive devices. In addition, a methodological quality control process was conducted. Studies were included if in the English language and related to compliance and adherence to the lower limb assistive device. Exclusion was based on first reading the abstract and then the full manuscript confirming content was not related to orthotic devices and compliance. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. The data revealed between 6% and 80% of patients were not using a prescribed device. Barriers to the use of the orthotic device included medical, functional, device properties and lack of proper fit. Strategies for improved compliance included better communication between patient and clinician, patient education, and improved comfort and device esthetics. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized orthotic adjustments, rehabilitation, and patient education were promising for increasing adherence. Despite positive aspects of improvements in gait, balance in elderly, and a sense of security produced by using assistive devices, compliance remains less than ideal due to barriers. As compliance in recent studies has not improved, continued work in this area is essential to realize the benefits of technological advances in orthotic and assistive devices.

Considerations for Implementation of an Ankle-Foot Orthosis to Improve Mobility in Peripheral Artery Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of wearing an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) who did and did not adopt the AFO intervention. This follows a clinical trial of the effectiveness of an AFO in improving walking distances for patients with PAD-related claudication. DESIGN: A randomized crossover trial of standard of care and an AFO for 3 months. Semistructured interviews were conducted 1.5 months into the AFO intervention to understand acceptability, demand, implementation, and practicality. Data were analyzed using a summative content analysis approach. SETTING: Vascular surgery clinic and biomechanics research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=15; male, 100%; age, 71.9±.6.7y; body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 29.0±.5.5; ankle brachial index: AFO intervention withdrawal, 0.543; AFO intervention completion, 0.740) with claudication completed the study, and 6 withdrew prior to intervention completion. INTERVENTIONS: A certified orthotist fit participants with an AFO that was worn for 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative analysis of the semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Key differences were reported between AFO intervention completion and AFO intervention withdrawal. Six of 14 of AFO intervention completion participants described their initial reactions to the AFO as negative vs 3 of 6 AFO intervention withdrawal participants. Only 5 of 15 AFO intervention completion participants reported minimal use of the AFO compared with 5 of 6 AFO intervention withdrawal participants. The AFO intervention withdrawal group reported higher levels of physical discomfort with the use of the AFO (4/6 vs 7/15) and preexisting health issues becoming a barrier to the use of the AFO (3/6 vs 5/15). Positive aspects reported included ease in standing and walking for AFO intervention withdrawal (4/6) and AFO intervention completion groups (13/15) as well as walking straighter and longer with less pain for AFO intervention withdrawal (3/6) and AFO intervention completion groups (9/15). CONCLUSIONS: Patients withdrawing prior to completion of AFO intervention tended to have more negative perceptions, more comorbidities, and more physical discomfort than those completing the intervention. Both groups reported positive aspects of the AFO. Implementation studies are needed to address barriers to AFO adoption.