AbiMansour Jad P, Kaur Jyotroop, Velaga Saran, Vatsavayi Priyanka, Vogt Matthew, Chandrasekhara Vinay
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Front Digit Health. 2024 Sep 4;6:1422929. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1422929. eCollection 2024.
Consumer facing wearable devices capture significant amounts of biometric data. The primary aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of consumer-facing wearable technology for continuous monitoring compared to standard anesthesia monitoring during endoscopic procedures. Secondary aims were to assess patient and provider perceptions of these devices in clinical settings.
Patients undergoing endoscopy with anesthesia support from June 2021 to June 2022 were provided a smartwatch (Apple Watch Series 7, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and accessories including continuous ECG monitor and pulse oximeter (Qardio Inc., San Francisco, CA) for the duration of their procedure. Vital sign data from the wearable devices was compared to in-room anesthesia monitors. Concordance with anesthesia monitoring was assessed with interclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Surveys were then distributed to patients and clinicians to assess patient and provider preferences regarding the use of the wearable devices during procedures.
292 unique procedures were enrolled with a median anesthesia duration of 34 min (IQR 25-47). High fidelity readings were successfully recorded with wearable devices for heart rate in 279 (95.5%) cases, oxygen in 203 (69.5%), and respiratory rate in 154 (52.7%). ICCs for watch and accessories were 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.62) for tachycardia, 0.03 (95% CI 0-0.14) for bradycardia, and 0.33 (0.22-0.43) for oxygen desaturation. Patients generally felt the devices were more accurate (56.3% vs. 20.0% agree, < 0.001) and more permissible (53.9% vs. 33.3% agree, < 0.001) to wear during a procedure than providers.
Smartwatches perform poorly for continuous data collection compared to gold standard anesthesia monitoring. Refinement in software development is required if these devices are to be used for continuous, intensive vital sign monitoring.
面向消费者的可穿戴设备能收集大量生物特征数据。本研究的主要目的是确定与内镜检查过程中的标准麻醉监测相比，面向消费者的可穿戴技术进行连续监测的准确性。次要目的是评估患者和医护人员在临床环境中对这些设备的看法。
2021年6月至2022年6月接受麻醉支持下内镜检查的患者在检查期间被提供了一块智能手表（苹果手表Series 7，苹果公司，库比蒂诺，加利福尼亚州）以及包括连续心电图监测仪和脉搏血氧仪（Qardio公司，旧金山，加利福尼亚州）在内的配件。将可穿戴设备的生命体征数据与室内麻醉监测仪的数据进行比较。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估与麻醉监测的一致性。然后向患者和临床医生分发调查问卷，以评估患者和医护人员在检查过程中对使用可穿戴设备的偏好。
共纳入292例独特的检查，中位麻醉持续时间为34分钟（四分位间距25 - 47分钟）。可穿戴设备成功记录了279例（95.5%）的心率、203例（69.5%）的血氧饱和度和154例（52.7%）的呼吸频率的高保真读数。手表及配件对于心动过速的ICC为0.54（95%可信区间0.46 - 0.62），对于心动过缓的ICC为0.03（95%可信区间0 - 0.14），对于血氧饱和度下降的ICC为0.33（0.22 - 0.43）。患者普遍感觉这些设备在检查过程中比医护人员认为的更准确（56.3%同意vs. 20.0%同意，P < 0.001）且更可接受（53.9%同意vs. 33.3%同意，P < 0.001）。
与金标准麻醉监测相比，智能手表在连续数据收集方面表现不佳。如果要将这些设备用于连续、密集的生命体征监测，软件开发需要改进。
