Literature DB >> 31743149

Vital Signs Monitoring with Wearable Sensors in High-risk Surgical Patients: A Clinical Validation Study.

Martine J M Breteler1, Eline J KleinJan, Daan A J Dohmen, Luke P H Leenen, Richard van Hillegersberg, Jelle P Ruurda, Kim van Loon, Taco J Blokhuis, Cor J Kalkman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vital signs are usually recorded once every 8 h in patients at the hospital ward. Early signs of deterioration may therefore be missed. Wireless sensors have been developed that may capture patient deterioration earlier. The objective of this study was to determine whether two wearable patch sensors (SensiumVitals [Sensium Healthcare Ltd., United Kingdom] and HealthPatch [VitalConnect, USA]), a bed-based system (EarlySense [EarlySense Ltd., Israel]), and a patient-worn monitor (Masimo Radius-7 [Masimo Corporation, USA]) can reliably measure heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) continuously in patients recovering from major surgery.
METHODS: In an observational method comparison study, HR and RR of high-risk surgical patients admitted to a step-down unit were simultaneously recorded with the devices under test and compared with an intensive care unit-grade monitoring system (XPREZZON [Spacelabs Healthcare, USA]) until transition to the ward. Outcome measures were 95% limits of agreement and bias. Clarke Error Grid analysis was performed to assess the ability to assist with correct treatment decisions. In addition, data loss and duration of data gaps were analyzed.
RESULTS: Twenty-five high-risk surgical patients were included. More than 700 h of data were available for analysis. For HR, bias and limits of agreement were 1.0 (-6.3, 8.4), 1.3 (-0.5, 3.3), -1.4 (-5.1, 2.3), and -0.4 (-4.0, 3.1) for SensiumVitals, HealthPatch, EarlySense, and Masimo, respectively. For RR, these values were -0.8 (-7.4, 5.6), 0.4 (-3.9, 4.7), and 0.2 (-4.7, 4.4) respectively. HealthPatch overestimated RR, with a bias of 4.4 (limits: -4.4 to 13.3) breaths/minute. Data loss from wireless transmission varied from 13% (83 of 633 h) to 34% (122 of 360 h) for RR and 6% (47 of 727 h) to 27% (182 of 664 h) for HR.
CONCLUSIONS: All sensors were highly accurate for HR. For RR, the EarlySense, SensiumVitals sensor, and Masimo Radius-7 were reasonably accurate for RR. The accuracy for RR of the HealthPatch sensor was outside acceptable limits. Trend monitoring with wearable sensors could be valuable to timely detect patient deterioration.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31743149     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  26 in total

Review 1.  The impact of continuous wireless monitoring on adverse device effects in medical and surgical wards: a review of current evidence.

Authors:  Eske K Aasvang; Christian S Meyhoff; Nikolaj Aagaard; Arendse Tange Larsen
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 1.977

2.  Evaluation of a contactless neonatal physiological monitor in Nairobi, Kenya.

Authors:  Dee Wang; William M Macharia; Roseline Ochieng; Dorothy Chomba; Yifat S Hadida; Roman Karasik; Dustin Dunsmuir; Jesse Coleman; Guohai Zhou; Amy Sarah Ginsburg; J Mark Ansermino
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 4.920

3.  The application of wearable smart sensors for monitoring the vital signs of patients in epidemics: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Niloofar Mohammadzadeh; Marsa Gholamzadeh; Soheila Saeedi; Sorayya Rezayi
Journal:  J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput       Date:  2020-11-13

4.  Feasibility of continuous monitoring of vital signs in surgical patients on a general ward: an observational cohort study.

Authors:  Jobbe P L Leenen; Eline M Dijkman; Joris D van Dijk; Henderik L van Westreenen; Cor Kalkman; Lisette Schoonhoven; Gijsbert A Patijn
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  EVIDENCE Publication Checklist for Studies Evaluating Connected Sensor Technologies: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  Christine Manta; Nikhil Mahadevan; Jessie Bakker; Simal Ozen Irmak; Elena Izmailova; Siyeon Park; Jiat-Ling Poon; Santosh Shevade; Sarah Valentine; Benjamin Vandendriessche; Courtney Webster; Jennifer C Goldsack
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2021-05-18

6.  Evaluation of respiratory rate monitoring using a microwave Doppler sensor mounted on the ceiling of an intensive care unit: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Tanaka; Masashi Yokose; Shunsuke Takaki; Takahiro Mihara; Yusuke Saigusa; Takahisa Goto
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 7.  Effectiveness of consumer-grade contactless vital signs monitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chi Pham; Khashayar Poorzargar; Mahesh Nagappa; Aparna Saripella; Matteo Parotto; Marina Englesakis; Kang Lee; Frances Chung
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 1.977

8.  Current clinical methods of measurement of respiratory rate give imprecise values.

Authors:  Gordon B Drummond; Darius Fischer; D K Arvind
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2020-09-28

9.  Construction and Application of a Medical-Grade Wireless Monitoring System for Physiological Signals at General Wards.

Authors:  Haoran Xu; Peiyao Li; Zhicheng Yang; Xiaoli Liu; Zhao Wang; Wei Yan; Maoqing He; Wenya Chu; Yingjia She; Yuzhu Li; Desen Cao; Muyang Yan; Zhengbo Zhang
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 4.460

10.  Patch validation: an observational study protocol for the evaluation of a multisignal wearable sensor in patients during anaesthesia and in the postanaesthesia care unit.

Authors:  Morgan Le Guen; Pierre Squara; Sabrina Ma; Shérifa Adjavon; Bernard Trillat; Messaouda Merzoug; Philippe Aegerter; Marc Fischler
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.