4.7 Article

Validation of Noninvasive Remote Dielectric Sensing System to Quantify Lung Fluid Levels

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010164

关键词

congestion; heart failure; hemodynamics; CT densitometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) system may be a promising noninvasive tool to quantify lung fluid levels. ReDS values were moderately correlated with the percentage of high attenuation area on computed tomography, and independently predicted the percentage of high attenuation area.
Background: The accuracy of the remote dielectric sensing (ReDSTM) system, which is a noninvasive electromagnetic-based technology to quantify lung fluid levels, particularly among those with small body size, remains uncertain. Methods: Hospitalized patients with and without heart failure underwent assessment of lung fluid levels with ReDS and successive chest computed tomography imaging. We performed a correlation analysis of the ReDS measurement, representing lung fluid levels, and computed tomography-derived high attenuation area percentage, which also provides a spatial quantification of lung fluid level. Results: A total of 46 patients (median 76 years old, 28 men), including 28 patients with heart failure, were included. The median ReDS value was 28% (interquartile: 23%, 33%), and the median percentage of high attenuation area was 21.6% (14.4%, 28.5%). ReDS values and percentage of high attenuation area were moderately correlated (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), irrespective of the existence of heart failure. ReDS value independently predicted the percentage of high attenuation area seen on computed tomography (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The ReDS system may be a promising, noninvasive tool to quantify fluid lung levels, as validated by comparison with chest computed tomography imaging. Further studies are warranted to validate the utility and applicability of this technology to a variety of clinical scenarios.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据