| Literature DB >> 30384506 |
Jan Nedoma1, Stanislav Kepak2, Marcel Fajkus3, Jakub Cubik4, Petr Siska5, Radek Martinek6, Petr Krupa7.
Abstract
The publication presents a comparative study of two fibre-optic sensors in the application of heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) monitoring of the human body. After consultation with clinical practitioners, two types of non-invasive measuring and analysis systems based on fibre Bragg grating (FBG) and fibre-optic interferometer (FOI) have been designed and assembled. These systems use probes (both patent pending) that have been encapsulated in the bio-compatible polydimethylsiloxane (PMDS). The main advantage of PDMS is that it is electrically non-conductive and, as well as optical fibres, has low permeability. The initial verification measurement of the system designed was performed on four subjects in a harsh magnetic resonance (MR) environment under the supervision of a senior radiology assistant. A follow-up comparative study was conducted, upon a consent of twenty volunteers, in a laboratory environment with a minimum motion load and discussed with a head doctor of the Radiodiagnostic Institute. The goal of the laboratory study was to perform measurements that would simulate as closely as possible the environment of harsh MR or the environment of long-term health care facilities, hospitals and clinics. Conventional HR and RR measurement systems based on ECG measurements and changes in the thoracic circumference were used as references. The data acquired was compared by the objective Bland⁻Altman (B⁻A) method and discussed with practitioners. The results obtained confirmed the functionality of the designed probes, both in the case of RR and HR measurements (for both types of B⁻A, more than 95% of the values lie within the ±1.96 SD range), while demonstrating higher accuracy of the interferometric probe (in case of the RR determination, 95.66% for the FOI probe and 95.53% for the FBG probe, in case of the HR determination, 96.22% for the FOI probe and 95.23% for the FBG probe).Entities:
Keywords: Bragg grating; ballistocardiography (BCG); biomedical engineering; electrocardiography (ECG); heart rate (HR); interferometer; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); non-invasive measurements; patient monitoring; phonocardiography (PCG); polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS); respiratory rate (RR); vital signs
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30384506 PMCID: PMC6263944 DOI: 10.3390/s18113713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
A comparison of both fibre-optic systems.
| Advantages | Disadvantages | Application Possibilities | Cost (Approximately) Probe/Evaluation Unit | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FBG system | the feed fibre is not sensitive to vibrations and other undesirable effects; one lead-in fibre for sensor; design of the sensor (probe) is extremely compact = small size; the possibility of quasi-distributed measurement - sensors can be multiplexed on a single optical fibre with single evaluation unit; the possibility of remote evaluation (hundreds meters); MRI-compatible | costly spectral evaluation (higher cost); low signal-to-noise ratio (in the case of multiple probes) | RR and HR of the human body | 100 $/18,000 $ |
| FOI system | higher sensitivity; measuring system can thus be constructed from commonly available components (low-cost); the potential for detecting acoustic signals (monitoring respiratory and arousal events); MRI-compatible | sensor’s dimensions (potentially discomfort); storing of the reference arm; a higher number of lead-in fibres for each sensor | RR and HR of the human body; monitoring respiratory and arousal events | 200 $/4000 $ |
A comparison of the most interesting fibre-optic sensors (based on the both interferometric and Bragg gratings designs) designed for monitoring respiratory rate and heart rate.
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| [ | Mach–Zehnder, Michelson, Sagnac, | No efficiency data presented by authors |
| [ | Mach–Zehnder, Michelson, Sagnac, | Insufficient data, our previously research: No efficiency data presented by authors |
| [ | Michelson (RR and HR) | Most recent, experimental study: recording time: 60 s; sensitivity: 97.64 ± 7.28%, precision: 99.38 ± 2.80%, maximum relative error: 7.35 ± 7.20% for RR detection, sensitivity: 99.46 ± 1.11%, precision: 99.60 ± 1.05%, maximum relative error: 3.16 ± 2.32% for HR detection |
| [ | Speckle interferometer (RR) | Sensitivity: 98.4 ± 1.1%, precision: 98.2 ± 2% |
| [ | Micro tapered Mach–Zehnder (RR) | Insufficient data |
| [ | Fabry–Perot interferometer (RR) | No efficiency data presented by authors |
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| [ | RR and/or HR | Most recent experimental study: An RMS (root mean square) value of the relative error is below 1.8%, our previously research (2 FBGs): maximum relative error 5.41% for RR detection, sensitivity 96.54% for HR detection |
Figure 1Sample recording of electrocardiogram (ECG) and phonocardiography (PCG) signals.
Figure 2Sample recordings of electrocardiogram (ECG) and ballistocardiography (BCG) signals.
Figure 3Fibre-optic interferometer measuring probe.
Figure 4The signal processing from the FOI probe to determine the respiratory rate (RR) and the heart rate (HR).
Figure 5Fiber Bragg grating measuring probe.
Figure 6The signal processing from the FBG probe to determine the RR and the heart rate HR.
Figure 7Basic schematic diagram of the measurement.
Figure 8(a) a schematic location of the fibre-optic probes on the human body; (b) a photo of the location of the fibre-optic probes on subject M1 in the supine body position.
Figure 9(a) Photography from the MRI examination; (b) MRI image acquired from the sensor location: sagittal view—test subject M2 (512 × 512 resolution).
Figure 10(a) Example of a FOI signal from the MRI during the examination; (b) suppression of undesirable effects by filtration.
Figure 11(a) an example of filtered signals representing the respiratory activity of subject M1; (b) an example of filtered signals representing the respiratory activity of subject F1.
Figure 12(a) an example of the RR waveform for subject M1; (b) an example of the RR waveform for subject F1.
Figure 13(a) B–A plot of M1 subject—FBG probe vs. PERT; (b) B–A plot of M1 subject—FOI probe vs. PERT; (c) B–A plot of F1 subject—FBG probe vs. PERT; (d) B–A plot of F1 subject—FOI probe vs. PERT.
Summary of respiratory measurements.
| FBG Probe | Interferometric Probe | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub. | Time (s) | ARR (rpm) | NoS (-) | Error (-) | Rel. Error (%) | Samples in ±1.96 SD (%) | NoS (-) | Error (-) | Rel. Error (%) | Samples in ±1.96 SD (%) |
| M1 | 3594 | 17 | 1025 | 45 | 4.39 | 95.61 | 1026 | 45 | 4.39 | 95.61 |
| M2 | 3557 | 16 | 957 | 41 | 4.28 | 95.72 | 957 | 40 | 4.18 | 95.82 |
| M3 | 3567 | 18 | 1057 | 39 | 3.69 | 96.31 | 1057 | 38 | 3.60 | 96.40 |
| M4 | 3612 | 17 | 1031 | 38 | 3.69 | 96.31 | 1031 | 37 | 3.59 | 96.41 |
| M5 | 3512 | 15 | 869 | 41 | 4.72 | 95.28 | 870 | 40 | 4.60 | 95.40 |
| M6 | 3517 | 16 | 939 | 37 | 3.94 | 96.06 | 939 | 37 | 3.94 | 96.06 |
| M7 | 3587 | 15 | 898 | 35 | 3.90 | 96.10 | 899 | 35 | 3.89 | 96.11 |
| M8 | 3574 | 17 | 1014 | 41 | 4.04 | 95.96 | 1015 | 40 | 3.94 | 96.06 |
| M9 | 3547 | 15 | 889 | 36 | 4.05 | 95.95 | 889 | 36 | 4.05 | 95.95 |
| M10 | 3568 | 18 | 1069 | 42 | 3.93 | 96.07 | 1071 | 42 | 3.92 | 96.0 |
| F1 | 3727 | 15 | 922 | 59 | 6.40 | 93.60 | 923 | 51 | 5.53 | 94.47 |
| F2 | 3624 | 11 | 667 | 37 | 5.55 | 94.45 | 667 | 35 | 5.25 | 94.75 |
| F3 | 3498 | 13 | 761 | 38 | 4.99 | 95.01 | 762 | 36 | 4.72 | 95.28 |
| F4 | 3614 | 12 | 719 | 34 | 4.73 | 95.27 | 719 | 34 | 4.73 | 95.27 |
| F5 | 3608 | 15 | 904 | 39 | 4.31 | 95.69 | 904 | 39 | 4.31 | 95.69 |
| F6 | 3578 | 14 | 835 | 33 | 3.95 | 96.05 | 836 | 31 | 3.71 | 96.29 |
| F7 | 3595 | 14 | 841 | 37 | 4.40 | 95.60 | 842 | 37 | 4.39 | 95.61 |
| F8 | 3587 | 15 | 898 | 42 | 4.68 | 95.32 | 898 | 41 | 4.57 | 95.43 |
| F9 | 3574 | 16 | 954 | 45 | 4.72 | 95.28 | 955 | 43 | 4.50 | 95.50 |
| F10 | 3604 | 14 | 842 | 43 | 5.11 | 94.89 | 842 | 42 | 4.99 | 95.01 |
| Sum | 71,644 | 18,091 | 802 | 4.47 | 95.53 | 18102 | 779 | 4.34 | 95.66 | |
Figure 14(a) The HR waveform for subject M1; (b) the HR waveform for subject F1.
Figure 15(a) An example of 10-s signals representing the cardiac activity of subject M1; (b) an example of 10-s signals representing the cardiac activity of subject F1.
Figure 16(a) B–A plot of M1 subject—FBG probe vs. ECG; (b) B–A plot of M1 subject—FOI probe vs. ECG; (c) B–A plot of F1 subject—FBG probe vs. ECG; (d) B–A plot of F1 subject—FOI probe vs. ECG.
Summary of heart rate measurements.
| FBG Probe | FOI Probe | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Time (s) | AHR (bpm) | NoS (-) | Error (-) | Rel. Error (%) | Samples in ±1.96 SD (%) | NoS (-) | Error (-) | Rel. Error (%) | Samples in ±1.96 SD (%) |
| M1 | 3602 | 63 | 3781 | 171 | 4.52 | 95.48 | 3781 | 121 | 3.20 | 96.80 |
| M2 | 3547 | 76 | 4487 | 197 | 4.39 | 95.61 | 4489 | 165 | 3.68 | 96.32 |
| M3 | 3628 | 77 | 4664 | 208 | 4.46 | 95.54 | 4665 | 158 | 3.39 | 96.61 |
| M4 | 3571 | 62 | 3691 | 185 | 5.01 | 94.99 | 3692 | 133 | 3.60 | 96.40 |
| M5 | 3498 | 76 | 4422 | 188 | 4.25 | 95.75 | 4422 | 159 | 3.60 | 96.40 |
| M6 | 3521 | 75 | 4398 | 185 | 4.21 | 95.79 | 4399 | 157 | 3.57 | 96.43 |
| M7 | 3617 | 71 | 4286 | 169 | 3.94 | 96.06 | 4288 | 149 | 3.47 | 96.53 |
| M8 | 3647 | 68 | 4128 | 168 | 4.07 | 95.93 | 4131 | 152 | 3.68 | 96.32 |
| M9 | 3645 | 66 | 4028 | 171 | 4.25 | 95.75 | 4029 | 147 | 3.65 | 96.35 |
| M10 | 3589 | 73 | 4382 | 185 | 4.22 | 95.78 | 4384 | 158 | 3.60 | 96.40 |
| F1 | 3507 | 82 | 4789 | 281 | 5.87 | 94.13 | 4781 | 187 | 3.91 | 96.09 |
| F2 | 3661 | 81 | 4941 | 266 | 5.38 | 94.62 | 4943 | 189 | 3.82 | 96.18 |
| F3 | 3586 | 87 | 5190 | 275 | 5.30 | 94.70 | 5192 | 204 | 3.93 | 96.07 |
| F4 | 3608 | 85 | 5118 | 249 | 4.87 | 95.13 | 5128 | 189 | 3.69 | 96.31 |
| F5 | 3591 | 82 | 4905 | 258 | 5.26 | 94.74 | 4905 | 197 | 4.02 | 95.98 |
| F6 | 3578 | 84 | 5012 | 247 | 4.93 | 95.07 | 5013 | 221 | 4.41 | 95.59 |
| F7 | 3617 | 81 | 4891 | 257 | 5.25 | 94.75 | 4893 | 198 | 4.05 | 95.95 |
| F8 | 3574 | 78 | 4653 | 255 | 5.48 | 94.52 | 4654 | 207 | 4.45 | 95.55 |
| F9 | 3652 | 85 | 5186 | 243 | 4.69 | 95.31 | 5187 | 198 | 3.82 | 96.18 |
| F10 | 3589 | 82 | 4912 | 251 | 5.11 | 94.89 | 4913 | 203 | 4.13 | 95.87 |
| Sum | 71,828 | 91,864 | 4409 | 4.77 | 95.23 | 91,889 | 3492 | 3.78 | 96.22 | |
Figure 17(a) an example of the impact of minor effects on the signal measured; (b) an example of the impact of major effects on the signal measured.