动脉导管传感器系统的实时精度评估

IF 5.6 4区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Irbm Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.irbm.2024.100867
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 ,&nbsp;Lisa Guigue ,&nbsp;Daniel Anglade ,&nbsp;Francis Grimbert ,&nbsp;Yves Lavault ,&nbsp;François Boucher ,&nbsp;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>&lt;</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>&lt;</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 ,&nbsp;Lisa Guigue ,&nbsp;Daniel Anglade ,&nbsp;Francis Grimbert ,&nbsp;Yves Lavault ,&nbsp;François Boucher ,&nbsp;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>&lt;</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>&lt;</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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:目前,重症监护室使用导管-传感器液体管路监测动脉压。在我们的研究中,我们将新型快速外部压力测试(FEPT)和快速冲洗测试(FFLT)获得的 Fn 和 z 与参考技术(正弦波变频分析测试 - SFAT)进行了交叉比较。测试在测试台上进行了 48 小时。结果用 FEPT 和 FFLT 测量 Fn 时出现了相似的偏差(0.79 vs 0.83 Hz),但 FEPT 的变异性较低,FFLT 的一致性范围 (LOA) 为 -3.35 至 +4.99 Hz,而 FEPT 为 -2.29 至 +3.86 Hz(p<0.0001)。对于 z 的测量,FEPT 的偏差为 0.047,LOA 为 -0.063 至 +0.157,远低于 FFLT 的测量值(偏差为 0.139,LOA 为 -0.028 至 +0.306)(p<0.0001)。这将防止误报、警报疲劳,从而避免对患者护理造成影响。最终,FEPT 比 FFLT 更准确、更分散、更省时、更具侵入性,因此非常适合在临床环境中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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 (p<0.0001) for FEPT. For the measurement of z, FEPT has a bias of 0.047 and LOA of −0.063 to +0.157, much lower (p<0.0001) 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Irbm
Irbm ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.20%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
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- …
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “Automatic Detection of Severely and Mildly Infected COVID-19 Patients with Supervised Machine Learning Models” [IRBM (2023) 100725] Comprehensive Review of Feature Extraction Techniques for sEMG Signal Classification: From Handcrafted Features to Deep Learning Approaches Real-Time Accuracy Evaluation of Arterial Catheter Transducer Systems Mechanical Work and Metabolic Cost of Walking with Knee-Foot Prostheses: A Study with a Prosthesis Simulator Corrigendum to “Transition Network-Based Analysis of Electrodermal Activity Signals for Emotion Recognition” [IRBM 45 (2024) 100849]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1