Why the study?
Does automatic detection of LVET from finger PPG-POW correlate with Doppler aortic measurement in healthy subjects?
Does automatic detection of LVET from finger PPG-POW correlate with Doppler aortic measurement in healthy subjects?
Finger photoplethysmographic pulse oximetry waveform provides a promising noninvasive method to track directional changes in left ventricular ejection time, though absolute accuracy requires further improvement.
May enable noninvasive LVET tracking in healthy subjects; leaves open patient validation and absolute accuracy refinement.
Left ventricular ejection time (LVET) is a useful measure of ventricular performance and preload. The present study explores a novel method of continuous LVET monitoring using a noninvasive finger photoplethysmographic pulse oximetry waveform (PPG-POW). A method for the automatic beat-to-beat detection of LVET from the finger PPG-POW is presented based on a combination of derivative analysis, waveform averaging and rule-based logic. The performance of the detection method was evaluated on 13 healthy subjects during graded head-up tilt. Overall, the correlation between the PPG-POW derived LVET and the aortic flow derived LVET was high and significant (r = 0.897, p < 0.05). The bias was -14 +/- 14 ms (mean +/- SD), and the percentage error was 9.7%. Although these results would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for clinical evaluation of LVET when absolute accuracy was demanded, the strong correlation between the PPG-POW LVET and the aortic LVET on an intra-subject basis (r = 0.945 +/- 0.043, mean +/- SD) would support the application of PPG-POW to detect the directional change in LVET of an individual. This could be very useful for the early identification of progressive hypovolaemia or blood loss. The present study has demonstrated a promising approach to extract potentially useful information from a noninvasive, easy-to-obtain signal that could be readily acquired either from existing patient monitoring equipment or from inexpensive instrumentation. More extensive investigation is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the present approach in clinical care monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chan et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: