| Literature DB >> 34713599 |
Christoph Steiger1,2, Nhi V Phan1, Hen-Wei Huang1,2, Haoying Sun1, Jacqueline N Chu1,3, Daniel Reker1,2, Declan Gwynne1,2, Joy Collins1, Siddartha Tamang1, Rebecca McManus1, Aaron Lopes1, Alison Hayward1,4, Rebecca M Baron5, Edy Y Kim5, Giovanni Traverso1,2,6.
Abstract
Continuous monitoring in the intensive care setting has transformed the capacity to rapidly respond with interventions for patients in extremis. Noninvasive monitoring has generally been limited to transdermal or intravascular systems coupled to transducers including oxygen saturation or pressure. Here it is hypothesized that gastric fluid (GF) and gases, accessible through nasogastric (NG) tubes, commonly found in intensive care settings, can provide continuous access to a broad range of biomarkers. A broad characterization of biomarkers in swine GF coupled to time-matched serum is conducted . The relationship and kinetics of GF-derived analyte level dynamics is established by correlating these to serum levels in an acute renal failure and an inducible stress model performed in swine. The ability to monitor ketone levels and an inhaled anaesthetic agent (isoflurane) in vivo is demonstrated with novel NG-compatible sensor systems in swine. Gastric access remains a main stay in the care of the critically ill patient, and here the potential is established to harness this establishes route for analyte evaluation for clinical management.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker monitoring; continuous monitoring; gastric sensors; nasogastric tubes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34713599 PMCID: PMC8693042 DOI: 10.1002/advs.202102861
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 16.806
Figure 1Schematic diagram demonstrating the concept to monitor systemic biomarkers with nasogastric (NG) compatible sensors. Gastric fluid (GF)/gas contains systemic biomarkers, and these can be monitored through A) aspiration and continuous analysis with ex vivo systems or B) intragastric sensor placements via NG tubes. The sensor resides in the stomach and is immersed in GF which contains systemic biomarkers. C) Demonstrates a use case in which a biomarker is monitored throughout the time period in between classical clinical laboratory testing to increase responsiveness of clinical care teams.
Figure 2Coincidence of markers in serum and gastric fluid (GF). The plot shows a comparison of a set of analytes in serum‐ and GF. All but 8 out of 125 serum analytes (inner circle) are detectable in porcine GF (outer circle). For simplification the pie chart only shows detectable serum analytes. All markers are shown in the bubble chart (n = 5 for each group, 154 detectable markers in total).
Figure 3Correlation of biomarker levels in GF and serum withdrawn from nondiseased pigs (no intervention) and pigs that underwent arterial ligation (kidney failure). A) Heatmap showing the Pearson correlation for i) the kidney failure group (n = 3, sampled for 5 h) and animals without intervention (n = 15). Examples are shown for B) good correlation (urea, r > 0.9), C) medium correlation (creatinine, r > 0.7) and D) no correlation (albumin, r < 0.5). Correlations within A representative animal are shown in E) for phosphorus (left axis), urea (left axis), and creatinine (right axis). The dashed lines indicate the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4Biomarker dynamics in gastric fluid (GF) and serum. A) Porcine kidney failure model. The brown arrow indicates the induction of kidney failure by arterial ligation. The Asterix indicates the level of significance between the kidney failure group (squares) and the control group (circles). The control group did not undergo arterial clamping. B) Porcine inducible stress model. The green arrows indicate the injection of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). Results are depicted as mean of n = 3 ± SD (* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001, **** p ≤ 0.0001.
Figure 5Figure Capacity of nasogastric (NG) tube compatible sensors to continuously monitor parameters for systemic health in swine. A) Chemically simulated ketoacidosis model. Acetone levels following intravenous injection in swine (indicated by the blue arrows) are monitored by an intragastric semiconductor sensor. The radiographic image shows the sensor after gastric placement. The sensor readout (left axis) over time is shown in comparison to acetone levels in blood and GF (right axis)—for comparison acetone levels commonly found in early ketoacidosis are shown (orange), accordingly.[ ] B) Commercially available NG tube comprising an integrated sensor with the capacity to simultaneously monitor multiple parameters (gas, temperature, pressure, humidity). Sensor readout following gastric placement in swine. The red arrow indicates increase of isoflurane flow from 2% to 3% for 5 min (used to maintain anesthesia). Results are depicted as mean of n = 4 for blood acetone ± SD, one reading is shown for the sensor readouts (see supplementary information for independent repeats as well as humidity / pressure data). C) Comparison of laboratory monitoring with phlebotomy versus gastric sensor over a typical course of diabetic ketoacidosis. Phlebotomy is typically done only every 4 h and provides information only about discrete time points, whereas gastric sensing could provide continuous information.[ ]