Carole Lavault , Lisa Guigue , Daniel Anglade , Francis Grimbert , Yves Lavault , François Boucher , Norbert Noury
{"title":"动脉导管传感器系统的实时精度评估","authors":"Carole Lavault , Lisa Guigue , Daniel Anglade , Francis Grimbert , Yves Lavault , François Boucher , Norbert Noury","doi":"10.1016/j.irbm.2024.100867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Arterial pressure is currently monitored in ICU with a catheter–transducer fluid line. This fluid filled tubing line distorts the original waveform due to its dynamic characteristics (natural frequency, Fn, and damping coefficient, z), introducing potentially significant errors when calculating the cardiac output from pulse contour signal analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In our study, we cross-compared Fn and z obtained with our new Fast External Pressure Test (FEPT) and with the Fast Flush Test (FFLT), to the reference technique (Sine wave variable Frequency Analysis Test - SFAT). It was carried on a testbench for 48 hours. Fn and z were measured using the three techniques with two fluid-filled tubing lines (standard, STD, and blood conserving device, BCD).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fn measurements with FEPT and FFLT present similar biases (0.79 vs 0.83 Hz), but lower variability for FEPT, with limits of agreement (LOA) ranging from −3.35 to +4.99 Hz for FFLT vs −2.29 to +3.86 Hz (<span><math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0.0001</mn></math></span>) for FEPT. For the measurement of z, FEPT has a bias of 0.047 and LOA of −0.063 to +0.157, much lower (<span><math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0.0001</mn></math></span>) than those measured with the FFLT (bias 0.139 and LOA −0.028 to +0.306).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>When automated, the FEPT method will detect potential situations of over/under estimations occurrences. This will prevent false alarms, alarm fatigue and therefore consequences on patient care. Eventually, FEPT turns to be more accurate than FFLT, less scattered, less time-consuming, less invasive and so well suited for use in clinical settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14605,"journal":{"name":"Irbm","volume":"46 1","pages":"Article 100867"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-Time Accuracy Evaluation of Arterial Catheter Transducer Systems\",\"authors\":\"Carole Lavault , Lisa Guigue , Daniel Anglade , Francis Grimbert , Yves Lavault , François Boucher , Norbert Noury\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.irbm.2024.100867\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Arterial pressure is currently monitored in ICU with a catheter–transducer fluid line. This fluid filled tubing line distorts the original waveform due to its dynamic characteristics (natural frequency, Fn, and damping coefficient, z), introducing potentially significant errors when calculating the cardiac output from pulse contour signal analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In our study, we cross-compared Fn and z obtained with our new Fast External Pressure Test (FEPT) and with the Fast Flush Test (FFLT), to the reference technique (Sine wave variable Frequency Analysis Test - SFAT). It was carried on a testbench for 48 hours. Fn and z were measured using the three techniques with two fluid-filled tubing lines (standard, STD, and blood conserving device, BCD).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fn measurements with FEPT and FFLT present similar biases (0.79 vs 0.83 Hz), but lower variability for FEPT, with limits of agreement (LOA) ranging from −3.35 to +4.99 Hz for FFLT vs −2.29 to +3.86 Hz (<span><math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0.0001</mn></math></span>) for FEPT. For the measurement of z, FEPT has a bias of 0.047 and LOA of −0.063 to +0.157, much lower (<span><math><mi>p</mi><mo><</mo><mn>0.0001</mn></math></span>) than those measured with the FFLT (bias 0.139 and LOA −0.028 to +0.306).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>When automated, the FEPT method will detect potential situations of over/under estimations occurrences. This will prevent false alarms, alarm fatigue and therefore consequences on patient care. Eventually, FEPT turns to be more accurate than FFLT, less scattered, less time-consuming, less invasive and so well suited for use in clinical settings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irbm\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100867\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irbm\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1959031824000484\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irbm","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1959031824000484","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Real-Time Accuracy Evaluation of Arterial Catheter Transducer Systems
Introduction
Arterial pressure is currently monitored in ICU with a catheter–transducer fluid line. This fluid filled tubing line distorts the original waveform due to its dynamic characteristics (natural frequency, Fn, and damping coefficient, z), introducing potentially significant errors when calculating the cardiac output from pulse contour signal analysis.
Methods
In our study, we cross-compared Fn and z obtained with our new Fast External Pressure Test (FEPT) and with the Fast Flush Test (FFLT), to the reference technique (Sine wave variable Frequency Analysis Test - SFAT). It was carried on a testbench for 48 hours. Fn and z were measured using the three techniques with two fluid-filled tubing lines (standard, STD, and blood conserving device, BCD).
Results
Fn measurements with FEPT and FFLT present similar biases (0.79 vs 0.83 Hz), but lower variability for FEPT, with limits of agreement (LOA) ranging from −3.35 to +4.99 Hz for FFLT vs −2.29 to +3.86 Hz () for FEPT. For the measurement of z, FEPT has a bias of 0.047 and LOA of −0.063 to +0.157, much lower () than those measured with the FFLT (bias 0.139 and LOA −0.028 to +0.306).
Conclusion
When automated, the FEPT method will detect potential situations of over/under estimations occurrences. This will prevent false alarms, alarm fatigue and therefore consequences on patient care. Eventually, FEPT turns to be more accurate than FFLT, less scattered, less time-consuming, less invasive and so well suited for use in clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
IRBM is the journal of the AGBM (Alliance for engineering in Biology an Medicine / Alliance pour le génie biologique et médical) and the SFGBM (BioMedical Engineering French Society / Société française de génie biologique médical) and the AFIB (French Association of Biomedical Engineers / Association française des ingénieurs biomédicaux).
As a vehicle of information and knowledge in the field of biomedical technologies, IRBM is devoted to fundamental as well as clinical research. Biomedical engineering and use of new technologies are the cornerstones of IRBM, providing authors and users with the latest information. Its six issues per year propose reviews (state-of-the-art and current knowledge), original articles directed at fundamental research and articles focusing on biomedical engineering. All articles are submitted to peer reviewers acting as guarantors for IRBM''s scientific and medical content. The field covered by IRBM includes all the discipline of Biomedical engineering. Thereby, the type of papers published include those that cover the technological and methodological development in:
-Physiological and Biological Signal processing (EEG, MEG, ECG…)-
Medical Image processing-
Biomechanics-
Biomaterials-
Medical Physics-
Biophysics-
Physiological and Biological Sensors-
Information technologies in healthcare-
Disability research-
Computational physiology-
…