| Literature DB >> 31304385 |
Matti Kaisti1,2, Tuukka Panula1, Joni Leppänen3, Risto Punkkinen1, Mojtaba Jafari Tadi1, Tuija Vasankari4, Samuli Jaakkola4, Tuomas Kiviniemi4,5, Juhani Airaksinen4, Pekka Kostiainen3, Ulf Meriheinä3, Tero Koivisto1, Mikko Pänkäälä1.
Abstract
There is an unmet clinical need for a low cost and easy to use wearable devices for continuous cardiovascular health monitoring. A flexible and wearable wristband, based on microelectromechanical sensor (MEMS) elements array was developed to support this need. The performance of the device in cardiovascular monitoring was investigated by (i) comparing the arterial pressure waveform recordings to the gold standard, invasive catheter recording (n = 18), (ii) analyzing the ability to detect irregularities of the rhythm (n = 7), and (iii) measuring the heartrate monitoring accuracy (n = 31). Arterial waveforms carry important physiological information and the comparison study revealed that the recordings made with the wearable device and with the gold standard device resulted in almost identical (r = 0.9-0.99) pulse waveforms. The device can measure the heart rhythm and possible irregularities in it. A clustering analysis demonstrates a perfect classification accuracy between atrial fibrillation (AF) and sinus rhythm. The heartrate monitoring study showed near perfect beat-to-beat accuracy (sensitivity = 99.1%, precision = 100%) on healthy subjects. In contrast, beat-to-beat detection from coronary artery disease patients was challenging, but the averaged heartrate was extracted successfully (95% CI: -1.2 to 1.1 bpm). In conclusion, the results indicate that the device could be useful in remote monitoring of cardiovascular diseases and personalized medicine.Entities:
Keywords: Biomedical engineering; Diagnosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31304385 PMCID: PMC6550190 DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0117-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: NPJ Digit Med ISSN: 2398-6352
Fig. 1Sensory system overview. a Sensor operation principle where the capacitance of the element changes as a function of outer pressure deforming the diaphragm. b Stress analysis results; top: a cross-section of the silicone gel bulb applied on top of the sensor element and substrate, bottom: simulated displacement of the gel when uniform pressure of 100 mmHg is applied to the surface. c Pristine and gel-modified elements. d Top view microscope photograph of the square-shaped element with a side length of 1.2 mm and photographs of the assembled sensor array; top view showing the elements and backside view of the PCB showing the capacitance to digital converter. e The array assembled on a flexible wristband and strapped on a healthy study subject and a cross-section of the tissue at the point of measurement. Most of the force created by blood pressure in the radial artery is projected to the sensor array. f Illustration of the obtained signals from the array and details of the pulse profile during one cardiac cycle
Fig. 2Sensor characterization. a Characterization setup. b Capacitive properties of modified sensor over frequency. Dashed lines are the standard deviation (n = 3). Inset compares pristine and modified sensors. c Sensitivity with different weights placed on the top of the sensor (n = 3). d Time trace of the sensor with sequential loading and unloading of 10 mg weight and e repeatability of three sequential loading/unloading of different weights (n = 3). f Frequency response. g Time trace of the sensor when sequentially loaded three times with a large weight mimicking a damaging situation (n = 3). h Repeatability of three sequential loading/unloading on three sensors and i temperature dependence (n = 3). All error bars present standard deviation
Fig. 3Comparison of non-invasive and invasive waveforms. a Measurement setup with the invasive (I) catheter (left) and the non-invasive (NI) wristband (right) along with samples of high-quality and low-quality signals. Comparison of ensemble averaged pulse waveforms of I (blue) and NI (red) pulse waveforms. The waveforms with highest b and lowest c Pearson correlation coefficient between the I and NI measurements from the study group are shown. d–f show the correlation and Blandt–Altman plots of the time intervals at (i) maximum slope, (ii) Dicrotic notch, and (iii) diastolic peak, respectively, and g compares the normalized MAP values between I and NI measurements. The dashed lines in Bland–Altman plots present the 95% CI
Fig. 4Detection of atrial fibrillation. a Pipeline for the atrial fibrillation detection algorithm (band-pass filter, top: autocorrelation, absolute value, integration; bottom: fast Fourier transform, absolute value, spectral entropy; classification). b Five second measurement of a healthy 34-year-old male. c Typical atrial fibrillation recording of 5 s. d and e The corresponding absolute value of the autocorrelation of b and c. f Clustering of healthy (n = 13) and atrial fibrillation patients (n = 7) using time–frequency analysis
Fig. 5Heartrate detection. a Pipeline of the heart rate detection algorithm (bandpass filter, artifact removal, convolution with triangular wavelet, multiscale-based peak detection, median beat interval, accepted HR interval). b Bland–Altman plot showing the agreement of heart rates obtained with the non-invasive wearable wristband (NI) and the invasive catheter (I). The dashed lines with corresponding values present the 95% CI. c Example of NI signal after band-pass filtering (top) and after convolution with triangle-shaped template (bottom). The red circles present the automatically detected peaks. d The found peaks referred back to the band-pass-filtered signal. Red circles and blue diamonds present the peaks from the NI and I (reference) signals, respectively
Performance metrics of the beat-to-beat detection (DSI)
| ID | HR (bpm) | TPR (%) | PPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90.3 | 96.9 | 99.5 |
| 2 | 72.0 | 100 | 100 |
| 3 | 67.5 | 100 | 100 |
| 4 | 91.8 | 92.7 | 100 |
| 5 | 57.5 | 99.2 | 100 |
| 6 | 93.4 | 100 | 100 |
| 7 | 61.6 | 100 | 100 |
| 8 | 107.6 | 100 | 100 |
| 9 | 96.9 | 100 | 100 |
| 10 | 69.9 | 100 | 100 |
| 11 | 60.8 | 100 | 100 |
| 12 | 60.2 | 99.2 | 100 |
| 13 | 74.3 | 100 | 100 |
| Average | 77.2 | 99.1 | 100 |