Zhang Peng, Zhuang Jing, Li Ting, Fan Dan, Lei Qian, Lin Dayong
Department of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 32 West Second Section First Ring Road, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 3;15(1):28296. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-12927-2.
There is a lack of research on use and effectiveness of wearable monitoring devices in the setting of invasive procedures, such as gastrointestinal endoscopy. Our study aimed to compare the consistency between wireless and conventional wired monitoring systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation. One hundred and twenty patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation/anesthesia were fitted with both wireless and conventional wired monitoring systems. Multiple physiological parameters, including heart rate (HR), pulse rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO) and systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean blood pressure (MAP), were monitored and recorded simultaneously. The correlation coefficients were 0.999, 0.939, 0.606, 0.837, 0.934 and 0.941 for HR, pulse rate, SpO, SBP, DBP and MAP, respectively (all p < 0.001). The HR exceeded its limits of agreements (LoAs) and clinically acceptable consistency thresholds in 56 (4.17%) and 41 (3.05%) data, pulse rate in 84 (6.0%) and 137 (9.80%) data, SpO in 116 (8.30%) and 18 (1.28%) data, SBP in 39 (6.32%) and 121 (19.61%)data, DBP in 34 (5.34%) and 52 (8.43%) data, and MAP in 28 (4.54%) and 57 (9.24%) data. The polar concordance rate at 30 degrees was 59.31% for SBP, 61.12% for DBP, and 68.55% for MAP according to polar plot trending analysis. This study demonstrated that the wireless monitoring system showed adequate agreement with wired system for HR and SpO₂, but suboptimal agreement for pulse rate, SBP, DBP, and MAP during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The blood pressure measurements meets the ISO 81060-2 accuracy criteria. Overall, wireless monitoring is generally acceptable for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but further validation is needed for high-risk patients.
在诸如胃肠内镜检查等侵入性操作中，关于可穿戴监测设备的使用及有效性的研究较少。我们的研究旨在比较在镇静状态下胃肠内镜检查中无线监测系统与传统有线监测系统之间的一致性。120例接受镇静/麻醉下胃肠内镜检查的患者同时配备了无线和传统有线监测系统。同时监测并记录了多个生理参数，包括心率（HR）、脉搏率、外周血氧饱和度（SpO）以及收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和平均血压（MAP）。HR、脉搏率、SpO、SBP、DBP和MAP的相关系数分别为0.999、0.939、0.606、0.837、0.934和0.941（所有p<0.001）。HR在56例（4.17%）和41例（3.05%）数据中超出其一致性界限（LoAs）及临床可接受的一致性阈值，脉搏率在84例（6.0%）和137例（9.80%）数据中超出，SpO在116例（8.30%）和18例（1.28%）数据中超出，SBP在39例（6.32%）和121例（19.61%）数据中超出，DBP在34例（5.34%）和52例（8.43%）数据中超出，MAP在28例（4.54%）和57例（9.24%）数据中超出。根据极坐标图趋势分析，SBP在30度时的极性一致率为59.31%，DBP为61.12%，MAP为68.55%。本研究表明，在胃肠内镜检查期间，无线监测系统在HR和SpO₂方面与有线系统显示出足够的一致性，但在脉搏率、SBP、DBP和MAP方面一致性欠佳。血压测量符合ISO 81060-2准确性标准。总体而言，无线监测对于胃肠内镜检查通常是可接受的，但高危患者需要进一步验证。
