Background: The body Mass Index (BMI) is commonly used in clinical practice to screen for obesity and resulting cardiometabolic conditions. Nonetheless, BMI has limited utility as it cannot differentiate body fat (BF). Hypothesis: We tested the hypothesis that BF content measured by air displacement plethysmography (Bod-Pod®) had a stronger association with prevalent hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM) and dyslipidemia (DLP) when compared to BMI. Methods: We performed a community-based cross-sectional study on adults attending an employee wellness center from January 2007-December 2011 who had had a body composition assessment with Bod-Pod®. We excluded subjects with history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke at baseline. The prevalence of HTN, DM and DLP was assessed across quartiles of BF% and BMI categories. Their association with BF% and BMI was evaluated using linear regression models that adjusted for age, sex, and white race. Results: We included 3,052 individuals; 68 % were women, and the mean age ± SD was 42.09±12.8, BMI was 27.9±6.2; BF% 31.88±10.69, 892 (29.2%) were obese by BMI. Cardiometabolic conditions were prevalent in 496 (16.2%) with HTN, 378 (12.4%) with DM and 743 (24.4%) with DLP. While the prevalence of DM, HTN and DLP increased across BF% quartiles (all p for linearity>0.01), this was not always the case across BMI categories (p for linearity<0.05 for HTN and DLP, and 0.04 for DM) see Figure A . Elevated BF %, better identified individuals with HTN (AUC 0.766 vs 0.625; p<0.001), DM (AUC 0.643 vs. 0.568; p<0.001), DLP (AUC 0.758 vs. 0.593; p<0.001). Conclusion: BF content is better associated with a higher prevalence of HTN, DM, and DLP. Highlighting the role of body composition assessment in primary prevention. Dyslipidemia.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of many center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs leading many institutions to rely on home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) to provide critical secondary cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation. The impact of age on the change of exercise frequency and exercise capacity as a result of HBCR during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unknown. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 567 HBCR patients between March 2020 and May 2021. Patients who completed the Duke Activity Status Index questionnaire at enrollment and completion of HBCR were included. We calculated the number of reported exercise days/week , exercise min/day, and VO 2 peak estimated. Patients were divided into two groups according to age (Younger<65 y.o; Older≥65 y.o). Continuous data are described as mean ±SD and baseline data compared with a two-sample t-test. The delta change from pre-post between groups also are compared with a two-sample t-test. Results: Of 567 HBCR patients, 118 patients completed both pre and post HBCR questionnaires (Younger, n=54, 56±8 years old vs Older, n=64, 74±7 y.o, p<0.05). Both groups improved exercise days/week (4.4±2.8 to 5.8±1.3 vs 3.8±2.9 to 5.6±1.6 days, p<0.05 for both), exercise min/day (21±20 to 41±17 vs 20±20 to 37±17 min, p<0.05 for both), and VO 2 peak (20.5±7.1 to 27.6±8.0 vs 21.9±8.1 to 25.1±7.7 ml/min/kg, p<0.05 for both). The delta change for exercise days/week and exercise min/day were not significantly different between groups (1.4±2.7 vs 1.9±2.7 days and 19±19 vs 17±18 min, p>0.05); however, the Younger patients significantly increased their VO 2 peak more than the older patients (7.1±6.1 vs 3.2±5.3 ml/min/kg, p<0.05). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, exercise frequency (days/week and min/day) and exercise capacity (estimated VO2peak) increased in all patients participating in HBCR. With this, the increase in estimated exercise capacity was greater in younger patients compared with older patients. These findings suggest that additional work is needed to explore factors potentially limiting improvement and strategies to maximize improvement in exercise capacity in older patients participating in HBCR.

Introduction: Many center-based cardiac rehabilitation programs were forced to close during the pandemic resulting in a programmatic shift to delivering cardiac rehabilitation remotely in the home-based setting. This study examined sex differences in the change of exercise frequency and exercise capacity in patients participating in home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 567 HBCR patients between March 2020 and May 2021. Patients who completed the Duke Activity Status Index questionnaire before and after HBCR were included. We calculated the number of reported exercise days/ week, exercise min/day, and VO 2 peak estimated. Patients were divided into two groups according to sex (Male/Female). Continuous data are described as mean±SD and baseline data compared with a two-sample t-test. The delta change from pre-post between groups also are compared with a two-sample t-test. Results: Of 567 HBCR patients, 118 patients completed both pre and post HBCR questionnaires (Male, n=82, 66±12 yo vs Female, n=36, 65±12 yo, p=0.80). There were no differences between groups for baseline exercise days/week or exercise min/day pre HBCR (4.0±2.8 vs 4.1±3.0 days, p=0.87; 22±20 vs 18±20 min, p=0.33); however, VO 2 peak at baseline HBCR was higher in males than females (22.3±8.1 vs 18.9±5.9 ml/kg/min, p<0.05). Both groups improved exercise days/week (4.0±2.8 to 5.7±1.5 vs 4.1±3.0 to 5.7±1.4 days, p<0.05 for both), exercise min/day (22±20 to 40±15 vs 18±20 to 37±21 min, p<0.05 for both), and VO 2 peak (22.3±8.1 to 27.8±8.0 vs 18.9±5.9 to 22.7±6.5, ml/kg/min, p<0.05 for both). In addition, there was no significant difference for the delta change of the three outcomes between groups (1.7±2.7 vs 1.6±2.5 days; 18±19 vs 19±18 min; 5.5±6.5 vs 3.8±4.5 ml/min/kg, p>0.05 for all). Conclusions: Female patients entering HBCR during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated lower exercise capacity compared to males; however, both female and male patients increased exercise frequency (days/week and min/day) and exercise capacity (estimated VO 2 peak) similarly after attending HBCR during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Body fat (BF) content better predicts adiposity-related cardiovascular risk than the body mass index (BMI). Accurate and accepted methods to assess BF are complex, expensive, and accessible only in clinical settings. Multi-sensor 3D body volume (3D-BV) measurement technology has been shown to accurately estimate BF. We assessed the hypothesis that 3D models generated from biplane imaging (i.e., front and side facing photographs) using mobile devices (App), could be used to predict body volume measurements and derive BF. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 196 subjects, who underwent 3D-BV (gold standard for body volume) within 24 hours, dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (iDEXA) (gold standard for BF) and photographs taken with an Ipad® App at a predefined distance and pose. These photos were post-processed with a computer-assisted algorithm to estimate body length, girth, and volume. These were used to calculate body density (BD) using the bicompartmental principles of body composition (BD=Body Mass/Volume) and derive BF% using the Siri equation [(4.95/BD-4.50) X 100]. Correlation indexes and residual plots were created to compare 3D-BV and iDEXA with the App. Mean differences were compared using a paired t-test. Results: Mean ±SD age was 31.9±9.15 years, 53% were women, weight 72.8±14.1 kg, BMI was 25.5±4.5 kg/m 2 .The App volume correlated with 3D-BV (R 2 =0.95,95%CI 0.90,0.95, p<.0001, Figure 1-A ) ; average difference between App volume vs 3D-BV volume was -1.2 Liters, 95%CI,0.03, 2.42, p=0.06, ( Figure 1-B ). App BF% correlated with iDEXA BF% (R 2 =0.92, 95%CI 0.90,0.94, p<.0001, Figure 1-C ) ; while average difference between App BF% vs iDEXA BF% was -0.13 %, 95%CI -0.6,0.4, p=0.6, ( Figure 1-D ). Conclusion: BF can be estimated using volume measurements obtained by biplane imaging from mobile devices and could serve as a home-based, portable, scalable, cost-effective, and convenient measure to assess BF and track changes in body composition over time.

Introduction: Arrhythmias commonly occur during clinical exercise stress testing (EST), however there are limited data on prognostic significance, particularly differences between individuals with minor versus significant arrhythmia burden. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that significant but not minor arrhythmia burden during EST would be predictive of future all-cause mortality. Methods: Adults who underwent clinically indicated EST at Mayo Clinic Rochester between September 1993 and April 2017 were included and followed-up until March 2021 using the National Death Index to ascertain survival status. Expert clinician coding pertaining to arrhythmia burden during EST were used to group individuals (see Table 1 ). Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known predictors of exercise-induced arrhythmias, were used to test the association of arrhythmia burden with all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 30796 individuals were included (age: 55±14yrs; female: 36%; Table 1 ). Mean follow-up was 8.8±3.6yrs, with a total of 2516 deaths. Arrhythmia during EST was associated with all-cause mortality compared with no arrhythmia (HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.58-1.88; p<0.001), however significant arrhythmia showed greater association compared with minor arrhythmia (HR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.81-2.38; p<0.001). Both minor and significant arrhythmia during EST were significant predictors of all-cause mortality compared with no arrhythmia ( Figure, Table 2 ), however, after model adjustments, only significant arrhythmia was associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.21-1.63; p<0.001) ( Table 2 ). Conclusions: After multivariate adjustment, significant arrhythmia burden during EST showed a 40% increased future risk of all-cause mortality, Conversely, adjusting for age and sex attenuated the effect of minor arrhythmia burden during EST on incidence of death. These results highlight the clinical significance of arrhythmia burden during exercise testing.