Sun Shaoxiong, Peeters Wouter H, Bezemer Rick, Long Xi, Paulussen Igor, Aarts Ronald M, Noordergraaf Gerrit J
Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Philips Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2019 Feb;33(1):65-75. doi: 10.1007/s10877-018-0140-5. Epub 2018 Apr 11.
To non-invasively predict fluid responsiveness, respiration-induced pulse amplitude variation (PAV) in the photoplethysmographic (PPG) signal has been proposed as an alternative to pulse pressure variation (PPV) in the arterial blood pressure (ABP) signal. However, it is still unclear how the performance of the PPG-derived PAV is site-dependent during surgery. The aim of this study is to compare finger- and forehead-PPG derived PAV in their ability to approach the value and trend of ABP-derived PPV. Furthermore, this study investigates four potential confounding factors, (1) baseline variation, (2) PPV, (3) ratio of respiration and heart rate, and (4) perfusion index, which might affect the agreement between PPV and PAV. In this work, ABP, finger PPG, and forehead PPG were continuously recorded in 29 patients undergoing major surgery in the operating room. A total of 91.2 h data were used for analysis, from which PAV and PPV were calculated and compared. We analyzed the impact of the four factors using a multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis. The results show that compared with the ABP-derived PPV, finger-derived PAV had an agreement of 3.2 ± 5.1%, whereas forehead-PAV had an agreement of 12.0 ± 9.1%. From the MLR analysis, we found that baseline variation was a factor significantly affecting the agreement between PPV and PAV. After correcting for respiration-induced baseline variation, the agreements for finger- and forehead-derived PAV were improved to reach an agreement of - 1.2 ± 3.8% and 3.3 ± 4.8%, respectively. To conclude, finger-derived PAV showed better agreement with ABP-derived PPV compared to forehead-derived PAV. Baseline variation was a factor that significantly affected the agreement between PPV and PAV. By correcting for the baseline variation, improved agreements were obtained for both the finger and forehead, and the difference between these two agreements was diminished. The tracking abilities for both finger- and forehead-derived PAV still warrant improvement for wide use in clinical practice. Overall, our results show that baseline-corrected finger- and forehead-derived PAV may provide a non-invasive alternative for PPV.
为了无创预测液体反应性,有人提出利用光电容积脉搏波描记法(PPG)信号中呼吸诱导的脉搏振幅变化(PAV)来替代动脉血压(ABP)信号中的脉压变异(PPV)。然而,手术期间源自PPG的PAV的性能如何因部位而异仍不清楚。本研究的目的是比较源自手指和前额PPG的PAV接近源自ABP的PPV的值和趋势的能力。此外,本研究调查了四个潜在的混杂因素:(1)基线变异,(2)PPV,(3)呼吸与心率之比,以及(4)灌注指数,这些因素可能会影响PPV与PAV之间的一致性。在这项研究中,对29例在手术室接受大手术的患者连续记录ABP、手指PPG和前额PPG。共91.2小时的数据用于分析,从中计算并比较PAV和PPV。我们使用多元线性回归(MLR)分析来分析这四个因素的影响。结果表明,与源自ABP的PPV相比,源自手指的PAV的一致性为3.2±5.1%,而源自前额的PAV的一致性为12.0±9.1%。通过MLR分析,我们发现基线变异是显著影响PPV与PAV之间一致性的一个因素。校正呼吸诱导的基线变异后,源自手指和前额的PAV的一致性分别提高到-1.2±3.8%和3.3±4.8%。总之,与源自前额的PAV相比,源自手指的PAV与源自ABP的PPV表现出更好的一致性。基线变异是显著影响PPV与PAV之间一致性的一个因素。通过校正基线变异,手指和前额的一致性均得到改善,且这两种一致性之间的差异减小。源自手指和前额的PAV的追踪能力在临床实践中的广泛应用仍有待提高。总体而言,我们的结果表明,经基线校正的源自手指和前额的PAV可能为PPV提供一种无创替代方法。