Literature DB >> 31761422

Are current wireless monitoring systems capable of detecting adverse events in high-risk surgical patients? A descriptive study.

Martine J M Breteler1, Eline KleinJan2, Lieke Numan3, Jelle P Ruurda4, Richard Van Hillegersberg4, Luke P H Leenen4, Mathilde Hermans5, Cor J Kalkman6, Taco J Blokhuis7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse events are common in high-risk surgical patients, but early detection is difficult. Recent innovations have resulted in wireless and 'wearable' sensors, which may capture patient deterioration at an early stage, but little is known regarding their ability to timely detect events. The objective of this study is to describe the ability of currently available wireless sensors to detect adverse events in high-risk patients.
METHODS: A descriptive analysis was performed of all vital signs trend data obtained during an observational comparison study of wearable sensors for vital signs monitoring in high-risk surgical patients during the initial days of recovery at a surgical step-down unit (SDU) and subsequent traumatology or surgical oncology ward. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were continuously recorded. Vital sign trend patterns of patients that developed adverse events were described and compared to vital sign recordings of patients without occurrence of adverse events. Two wearable patch sensors were used (SensiumVitals and HealthPatch), a bed-based mattress sensor (EarlySense) and a patient-worn monitor (Masimo Radius-7).
RESULTS: Twenty adverse events occurred in 11 of the 31 patients included. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was most common (20%). The onset of AF was recognizable as a sudden increase in HR in all recordings, and all patients with new-onset AF after esophagectomy developed other postoperative complications. Patients who developed respiratory insufficiency showed an increase in RR and a decrease in SpO2, but an increase in HR was not always visible. In patients without adverse events, temporary periods of high HR and RR are observed as well, but these were transient and less frequent.
CONCLUSIONS: Current systems for remote wireless patient monitoring on the ward are capable of detecting abnormalities in vital sign patterns in patients who develop adverse events. Remote patient monitoring may have potential to improve patient safety by generating early warnings for deterioration to nursing staff.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Remote patient monitoring; Telemedicine; Vital signs; Wearable monitoring; mHealth

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31761422     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  10 in total

Review 1.  Esophagectomy-prevention of complications-tips and tricks for the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative stage.

Authors:  Uberto Fumagalli Romario; Stefano de Pascale
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-07-18

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Cardiac Ambulatory Monitoring: New Wireless Device Validated Against Conventional Holter Monitoring in a Case Series.

Authors:  Srinivasan Murali; Nicolas Brugger; Francisco Rincon; Manoj Mashru; Stéphane Cook; Jean-Jacques Goy
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-11-30

Review 5.  Wearable devices to monitor recovery after abdominal surgery: scoping review.

Authors:  Cameron I Wells; William Xu; James A Penfold; Celia Keane; Armen A Gharibans; Ian P Bissett; Greg O'Grady
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2022-03-08

6.  Successes of and Lessons From the First Joint eHealth Program of the Dutch University Hospitals: Evaluation Study.

Authors:  Anneloek Rauwerdink; Marise J Kasteleyn; Niels H Chavannes; Marlies P Schijven
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Feasibility of wireless continuous monitoring of vital signs without using alarms on a general surgical ward: A mixed methods study.

Authors:  Jobbe P L Leenen; Henriëtte J M Rasing; Joris D van Dijk; Cor J Kalkman; Lisette Schoonhoven; Gijs A Patijn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Adaptive threshold-based alarm strategies for continuous vital signs monitoring.

Authors:  Mathilde C van Rossum; Lyan B Vlaskamp; Linda M Posthuma; Maarten J Visscher; Martine J M Breteler; Hermie J Hermens; Cor J Kalkman; Benedikt Preckel
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 1.977

Review 9.  The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Genitourinary Cancer Care: Re-envisioning the Future.

Authors:  Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Continuous monitoring in COVID-19 care: a retrospective study in time of crisis.

Authors:  Roy de Ree; Jorn Willemsen; Gilbert Te Grotenhuis; Rick de Ree; Joé Kolkert; Malou Peppelman
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2021-04-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.