| Literature DB >> 31304288 |
Stephen P Lee1, Grace Ha2, Don E Wright1, Yinji Ma3,4, Ellora Sen-Gupta1, Natalie R Haubrich2, Paul C Branche1, Weihua Li1, Gilbert L Huppert1, Matthew Johnson2, Hakan B Mutlu1, Kan Li4, Nirav Sheth1, John A Wright1, Yonggang Huang4,5, Moussa Mansour2, John A Rogers5, Roozbeh Ghaffari1,5.
Abstract
Contemporary cardiac and heart rate monitoring devices capture physiological signals using optical and electrode-based sensors. However, these devices generally lack the form factor and mechanical flexibility necessary for use in ambulatory and home environments. Here, we report an ultrathin (~1 mm average thickness) and highly flexible wearable cardiac sensor (WiSP) designed to be minimal in cost (disposable), light weight (1.2 g), water resistant, and capable of wireless energy harvesting. Theoretical analyses of system-level bending mechanics show the advantages of WiSP's flexible electronics, soft encapsulation layers and bioadhesives, enabling intimate skin coupling. A clinical feasibility study conducted in atrial fibrillation patients demonstrates that the WiSP device effectively measures cardiac signals matching the Holter monitor, and is more comfortable. WiSP's physical attributes and performance results demonstrate its utility for monitoring cardiac signals during daily activity, exertion and sleep, with implications for home-based care.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic devices; Translational research
Year: 2018 PMID: 31304288 PMCID: PMC6550217 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-017-0009-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: NPJ Digit Med ISSN: 2398-6352
Fig. 1Schematic illustrations and images of soft flexible cardiac sensor in a thin elastic enclosure and data transfer to smartphone app. a Exploded image of WiSP device showing the multiple polymeric, electronic, adhesive and hydrogel layers. Image was created by co-author Don E. Wright (permission granted). b Illustration of assembled WiSP device consisting of five distinct layers (180 µm thick along the edges, 1.2 g) attached to the torso (in lead I or lead II orientation). The human silhouette is based on an icon created by Freepik (permission granted). c Data are wirelessly transmitted to smartphone (via NFC) for visualization of logged heart rate data and/or real-time ECG waveforms, and subsequently transmitted from smartphone to a cloud server (via WiFi or cellular connectivity). d, e WiSP device in mechanical twist and bend deformations
Fig. 2Summary of computational studies detailing the effects of normal and shear mechanical stresses from WiSP device on human skin. a Schematic drawing illustrating the cross-sectional design of simplified WiSP device attached to human skin with key lateral and transverse dimensions (z tot = 0.25 mm and L = 55 mm) and material layers (adhesive layer and PI layer) and their associated Young’s modulus, E. b Side profile view of WiSP device attached to skin surface under bending deformation with angle α. The applied curvature (κ = α/L o) is defined by the curvature of the skin under the device. c Finite element (FE) simulation results for a device applying shear (left column) and normal (right column) stresses on skin during bending deformations. For 0.002 and 0.005 mm−1 applied curvatures, the interfacial stresses on the skin are ~20 kPa, which is within the range of normal skin sensitivity. For 0.01 mm−1 applied curvatures, the interfacial stresses on the skin exceed 20 kPa near perimeter of the WiSP device
Fig. 3Cardiac sensing data with WiSP compared to control devices in healthy subjects. a Plot of ECG waveforms simultaneously recorded from GE Dash 3000 and WiSP with ECG and heart rate (HR) management filter settings. b Plot of heart rate data simultaneously recorded with Polar H7 and WiSP devices on a healthy subject during daily activity. c Scatter plot of measured heart rate data (n = 7 subjects) for WiSP and Polar H7 devices. d Bland–Altman analysis of WiSP vs. Polar H7 (n = 7 subjects) showing data sets falling within +3.26 BPM (upper limit: UL) and −3.40 BPM (lower limit: LL)
Patient demographics for 24-h clinical study comparing WiSP device and Holter monitor
| Variables | Subjects ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Average | 66.88 | |
| Std. Dev | 9.72 | ||
| Min | 41 | ||
| Max | 82 | ||
| Gender | Male | 15 | 88% |
| Female | 2 | 12% | |
| BMI | Average | 31.5 | |
| Std. Dev | 6.22 | ||
| Min | 21.47 | ||
| Max | 42.04 | ||
Fig. 4Clinical study comparing the WiSP device to standard of care Holter monitor with annotation. a WiSP heart rate data (2-min resolution) compared to Holter in a subject with atrial fibrillation. Annotations are detailed in sub-figures b and c. b Holter ECG snapshot of atrial fibrillation corresponding to the steep heart rate drop from 120 to 50 BPM. c Holter ECG snapshot highlighting a series of “atrial runs” corresponding to elevated heart rate
Fig. 5Remote monitoring study comparing the WiSP device to standard of care Holter monitor in atrial fibrillation patients. a Comparative analysis of WiSP (solid colored lines) vs. Holter (dashed colored lines) showing measured hourly heart rate as a function of time for multiple AF subjects (n = 17 patients). b Scatter plot comparing WiSP vs. Holter hourly heart rate data. c Bland–Altman plot of WiSP and Holter, comparing the hourly heart rate difference vs. hourly averaged heart rate. Comparison shows that 95% of the differences fall between +8.41 (upper limit: UL) and –5.81 BPM (lower limit: LL)
Fig. 6Patient exit survey results from AF clinical study participants. a Each patient was asked in a written survey about the “Ease of use of the WiSP device and Holter monitor” and given three choices (“very comfortable”, “moderately comfortable”, and “uncomfortable”). b Each patient was then asked in a written survey about their “Comfort level during sleep” and given three choices (“very comfortable”, “moderately comfortable”, and “uncomfortable”)