Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>Early warning scores in general wards are commonly limited by intermittent manual measurements; these are recognised as being time consuming and for impacting monitoring frequency. Wearable devices may support healthcare staff, improve patient safety and promote early deterioration detection. However available ambulatory monitoring devices need to be tested and validated before clinical implementation.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>The objective of this study is to determine the agreement between a chest-worn patch (VitalPatch®) and gold standard reference device for heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) measurements during movement and during gradual de-saturation in a controlled environment.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> <p>After both VitalPatch and gold standard device (Philips MX450) were placed, participants performed 7 different movements: At rest, Sit-to-Stand, Tapping, Rubbing, Drinking, Turning Pages, and Using a Tablet. In a controlled environment. Participants were then made hypoxic gradually down to 80% peripheral oxygen saturations. The primary outcome measures were the accuracy, defined as the mean absolute error (MAE) of the VitalPatch estimates when compared with their gold-standards. We defined these to be clinical acceptable if within 5 beats per minute (bpm) for HR and 3 respirations per minute (rpm) for RR.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>We acquired complete datasets of 29 participants. In the movement phase, HR estimates were within the pre-specified limits for all movements. For RR, estimates were also inside the acceptable range, with the exception of the Sit-to-Stand and Turning Pages movements, showing a MAE (95% CI) of 3.05 (2.48, 3.58) rpm and 3.45 (2.71, 4.11) rpm, respectively. For the hypoxia phase, these were always within the limits with an overall MAE for HR and RR of 0.72 (0.66, 0.78) bpm and 1.89 (1.75, 2.03) rpm, respectively. There were no significant differences in the VitalPatch performance across a range of oxygen desaturations.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>The VitalPatch was highly accurate throughout movement tests except for its RR estimation during two movements. This device was reliable throughout the hypoxia stages, with no significant accuracy differences in normoxia (≥ 90%), mild (89.9 - 85%) and severe hypoxia (&lt; 85%).</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> <p>ISRCTN61535692</p> </sec>

Original publication




Journal article


JMIR Publications Inc.

Publication Date