4.7 Article

Association between Lung Fluid Levels Estimated by Remote Dielectric Sensing Values and Invasive Hemodynamic Measurements

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051208

关键词

congestion; heart failure; hemodynamics; ReDS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the association between remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) values and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in patients with chronic heart failure. The results showed a moderate collinearity between ReDS values and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, even among patients with small stature. The study suggests that ReDS, based on electromagnetic technology, could be a potential tool to estimate cardiac pressure in patients with heart failure.
Background: Remote dielectric sensing (ReDS (TM)) is an electromagnetic-based technology used to noninvasively measure lung fluid levels. The association between ReDS values and invasively measured hemodynamics, particularly among those with small physics, remains unknown. Methods: Consecutive patients with chronic heart failure who were admitted to our institute and underwent invasive right heart catheterization as well as simultaneous ReDS measurement at clinically stable conditions between September and November 2021 were prospectively included. The colinearity between ReDS values and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was studied. Results: In total, 30 patients (median 79 (73, 84) years old, 13 men) were included. Median ReDS value was 26% (22%, 28%). ReDS values had a moderate collinearity with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (r = 0.698, p < 0.001), even among those with a body height < 155 cm. ReDS values with a cutoff of 28% predicted a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure > 15 mmHg with sensitivity 0.70 and specificity 0.75. Conclusions: An electromagnetic-based engineering ReDS might be a potential tool to estimate cardiac pressure in patients with heart failure, including those with small physics.

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