| Literature DB >> 29861438 |
Hugo F Posada-Quintero1, Natasa Reljin2, Caitlin Eaton-Robb3, Yeonsik Noh4,5, Jarno Riistama6, Ki H Chon7.
Abstract
The detection of intrathoracic volume retention could be crucial to the early detection of decompensated heart failure (HF). Transthoracic Bioimpedance (TBI) measurement is an indirect, promising approach to assessing intrathoracic fluid volume. Gel-based adhesive electrodes can produce skin irritation, as the patient needs to place them daily in the same spots. Textile electrodes can reduce skin irritation; however, they inconveniently require wetting before each use and provide poor adherence to the skin. Previously, we developed waterproof reusable dry carbon black polydimethylsiloxane (CB/PDMS) electrodes that exhibited a good response to motion artifacts. We examined whether these CB/PDMS electrodes were suitable sensing components to be embedded into a monitoring vest for measuring TBI and the electrocardiogram (ECG). We recruited N = 20 subjects to collect TBI and ECG data. The TBI parameters were different between the various types of electrodes. Inter-subject variability for copper-mesh CB/PDMS electrodes and Ag/AgCl electrodes was lower compared to textile electrodes, and the intra-subject variability was similar between the copper-mesh CB/PDMS and Ag/AgCl. We concluded that the copper mesh CB/PDMS (CM/CB/PDMS) electrodes are a suitable alternative for textile electrodes for TBI measurements, but with the benefit of better skin adherence and without the requirement of wetting the electrodes, which can often be forgotten by the stressed HF subjects.Entities:
Keywords: bioimpedance; electrocardiogram; electrodes; fluid accumulation; heart failure
Year: 2018 PMID: 29861438 PMCID: PMC6022212 DOI: 10.3390/s18061719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Illustrative example of Cole–Cole plot for Transthoracic Bioimpedance (TBI) measurements.
Figure 2Subject wearing a fluid accumulation vest (FAV): (A) Front of the vest showing the compression strap and (B) measuring device connected via Bluetooth to a smartphone.
Figure 3FAV and electrodes. (A) The FAV (Philips) modified to include snaps for electrode connections; (B) textile electrodes embedded in a Philips vest; and (C) carbon black polydimethylsiloxane (CB/PDMS) electrodes.
Figure 4Flow charts of inter-subject (A) and intra-subject (B) analyses.
Figure 5Cole–Cole plots obtained for the five types of electrodes, for a given subject.
Resulting R0 and R and peak-to-peak electrocardiogram (ECG) amplitudes for inter-subject analysis.
| Electrode Type | Peak-To-Peak ECG Amplitude (V) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ag/AgCl | 24 ± 3.7 * | 24 ± 5.2 * | 1.53 ± 0.69 |
| Textile | 21 ± 3.1 | 19 ± 8.2 | 1.55 ± 0.63 |
| CM/CB/PDMS | 26 ± 4.5 * | 24 ± 5.6 * | 1.51 ± 0.74 |
| PT/CB/PDMS | 26 ± 6.6 * | 25 ± 11 * | 1.44 ± 0.82 |
| PST/CB/PDMS | 26 ± 5.4 * | 27 ± 13 * | 1.5 ± 0.69 |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. * Statistically-significant difference with respect to the textile (p <0.05). CM/CB/PDMS—copper mesh carbon black polydimethylsiloxane; PT/CB/PDMS—poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT) textile CB/PDMS; PST/CB/PDMS— PEDOT salt textile, CB/PDMS.
Coefficient of variation (unitless) for the different electrodes.
| Electrode Type |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Ag/AgCl | 0.15 (0.14 0.16) | 0.22 (0.2 0.24) |
| Textile | 0.15 (0.14 0.16) | 0.42 (0.39 0.46) |
| CM/CB/PDMS | 0.17 (0.16 0.18) | 0.24 (0.22 0.26) |
| PT/CB/PDMS | 0.25 (0.23 0.27) | 0.42 (0.39 0.46) |
| PST/CB/PDMS | 0.2 (0.19 0.22) | 0.50 (0.46 0.55) |
Confidence interval of the coefficient of variation (CV) is provided with a level of significance of 0.05.
Bland–Altman analysis for inter-subject concordance. Textile electrodes were used as reference.
|
| Bias (CI) (Ω) | CR (Ω) | sd (Ω) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Ag/AgCl | 0.6940 | 2.3 (−1.9 6.5) | 4.2 | 2.1 |
| CM/CB/PDMS | 0.7937 | 5.8 (2.123 9.4) | 3.6 | 1.9 |
| PT/CB/PDMS | 0.5310 | 4.5 (−4.6 13.6) | 9.1 | 4.6 |
| PST/CB/PDMS | 0.6707 | 4.3 (−1.9 10.5) | 6.2 | 3.1 |
|
| ||||
| Ag/AgCl | 0.7867 | 3.2 (−2.3 8.6) | 5.4 | 2.8 |
| CM/CB/PDMS | 0.6915 | 3.4 (−4.2 11.0) | 7.6 | 3.9 |
| PT/CB/PDMS | 0.1456 | 4.9 (−14.9 24.8) | 19.8 | 10.1 |
| PST/CB/PDMS | 0.5865 | 6.2 (−12.8 25.2) | 18.9 | 9.7 |
r2—coefficient of determination; CI— confidence interval provided with a level of significance of 0.05; CR—1.96 × sd, coefficient of repeatability; sd—standard deviation.
Figure 6Bland—Altman plots for the copper mesh carbon black polydimethylsiloxane (CM/CB/PDMS) electrodes vs. textile electrodes. Left: R0; right: R.
Figure 7ECG templates for a given subject. Solid line is the resulting template. Dotted lines represent mean ± one standard deviation. Red marks represent maximum and minimum values of reference to compute peak-to-peak amplitude.
Intra-subject consistency analysis results.
| CV (CI) | ICC (CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electrode |
|
|
|
|
| Textile | 0.034 (0.029 0.04) | 0.058 (0.048 0.067) | 0.99 (0.98 1) | 0.99 (0.98 0.99) |
| CM/CB/PDMS | 0.041 (0.035 0.048) | 0.079 (0.066 0.091) | 0.98 (0.97 0.99) | 0.96 (0.92 0.98) |
CV—coefficient of variation; ICC—intra-class correlation coefficient; CI—confidence interval provided with a level of significance of 0.05.
Figure 8Intra-subject measurements for a given subject. Left: textile electrodes. Right: CM/CB/PDMS electrodes.
Figure 9Results moving the Ag/AgCl electrodes.