The Journal of emergency medicine · 2022
Contactless Vital Signs Acquisition Using Video Photoplethysmography, Motion Analysis and Passive Infrared Thermography Devices During Emergency Department Walk-In Triage in Pandemic Conditions.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Capraro Geoffrey A, Balmaekers Benoit, den Brinker Albertus C, Rocque Mukul, DePina Yanira, Schiavo Matthew W, Brennan Kathryn, Kobayashi Leo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Contactless vital signs (VS) measurement with video photoplethysmography (vPPG), motion analysis (MA), and passive infrared thermometry (pIR) has shown promise.
OBJECTIVES: To compare conventional (contact-based) and experimental contactless VS measurement approaches for emergency department (ED) walk-in triage in pandemic conditions.
METHODS: Patients' heart rates (HR), respiratory rates (RR), and temperatures were measured with cardiorespiratory monitor and vPPG, manual count and MA, and contact thermometers and pIR, respectively.
RESULTS: There were 475 walk-in ED patients studied (95% of eligible). Subjects were 35.2 ± 20.8 years old (range 4 days‒95 years); 52% female, 0.2% transgender; had Fitzpatrick skin type of 2.3 ± 1.4 (range 1‒6), Emergency Severity Index of 3.0 ± 0.6 (range 2‒5), and contact temperature of 36.83°C (range 35.89-39.4°C) (98.3°F [96.6‒103°F]). Pediatric HR and RR data were excluded from analysis due to research challenges associated with pandemic workflow. For a 30-s, unprimed "Triage" window in 377 adult patients, vPPG-MA acquired 377 (100%) HR measurements featuring a mean difference with cardiorespiratory monitor HR of 5.9 ± 12.8 beats/min (R = 0.6833) and 252 (66.8%) RR measurements featuring a mean difference with manual RR of -0.4 ± 2.6 beats/min (R = 0.8128). Subjects' Emergency Severity Index components based on conventional VS and contactless VS matched for 83.8% (HR) and 89.3% (RR). Filtering out vPPG-MA measurements with low algorithmic confidence reduced VS acquired while improving correlation with conventional measurements. The mean difference between contact and pIR temperatures was 0.83 ± 0.67°C (range -1.16-3.5°C) (1.5 ± 1.2°F [range -2.1-6.3°F]); pIR fever detection improved with post hoc adjustment for mean bias.
CONCLUSION: Contactless VS acquisition demonstrated good agreement with contact methods during adult walk-in ED patient triage in pandemic conditions; clinical applications will need further study.
OBJECTIVES: To compare conventional (contact-based) and experimental contactless VS measurement approaches for emergency department (ED) walk-in triage in pandemic conditions.
METHODS: Patients' heart rates (HR), respiratory rates (RR), and temperatures were measured with cardiorespiratory monitor and vPPG, manual count and MA, and contact thermometers and pIR, respectively.
RESULTS: There were 475 walk-in ED patients studied (95% of eligible). Subjects were 35.2 ± 20.8 years old (range 4 days‒95 years); 52% female, 0.2% transgender; had Fitzpatrick skin type of 2.3 ± 1.4 (range 1‒6), Emergency Severity Index of 3.0 ± 0.6 (range 2‒5), and contact temperature of 36.83°C (range 35.89-39.4°C) (98.3°F [96.6‒103°F]). Pediatric HR and RR data were excluded from analysis due to research challenges associated with pandemic workflow. For a 30-s, unprimed "Triage" window in 377 adult patients, vPPG-MA acquired 377 (100%) HR measurements featuring a mean difference with cardiorespiratory monitor HR of 5.9 ± 12.8 beats/min (R = 0.6833) and 252 (66.8%) RR measurements featuring a mean difference with manual RR of -0.4 ± 2.6 beats/min (R = 0.8128). Subjects' Emergency Severity Index components based on conventional VS and contactless VS matched for 83.8% (HR) and 89.3% (RR). Filtering out vPPG-MA measurements with low algorithmic confidence reduced VS acquired while improving correlation with conventional measurements. The mean difference between contact and pIR temperatures was 0.83 ± 0.67°C (range -1.16-3.5°C) (1.5 ± 1.2°F [range -2.1-6.3°F]); pIR fever detection improved with post hoc adjustment for mean bias.
CONCLUSION: Contactless VS acquisition demonstrated good agreement with contact methods during adult walk-in ED patient triage in pandemic conditions; clinical applications will need further study.