4.6 Article

Decomposing photoplethysmogram waveforms into systolic and diastolic waves, with to environments

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2023.104814

关键词

PPG morphology; Pulse decomposition analysis; Hyperbaric environments; Lognormal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study applied a new algorithm to decompose the photoplethysmogram (PPG) pulse and identified changes in PPG pulse morphology due to pressure. The results showed that there was an increase in amplitude, width, and area values of the PPG pulse, and a decrease in ratios when pressure increased, indicating vasoconstriction. Furthermore, some parameters were found to be related to the pulse-to-pulse interval.
Objective: A new algorithm to decompose the photoplethysmogram (PPG) pulse in two waves related with the systolic and diastolic parts, was applied to identify alterations in the morphology of the PPG pulse due to the pressure. Approach: Each pulse was decomposed into two waves: the first one a Gaussian related with the systolic peak, and the second one was modelled as a lognormal curve associated with the diastolic part. From these two waves, 13 parameters related with the width (W1, W2 and W2/W1), the time instant (T1, T2, T21, TBB), the amplitude (A1, A2, A2/A1) and the areas (D1, D2, D2/D1) were estimated. These parameters were computed from subjects inside a hyperbaric chamber, involving five stages at different pressure: 1 atm, 3 atm, 5 atm, 3 atm and 1 atm. Main results: There was a significant increase in the values of A1, A2, W1, T1, and D1, and a decrease in the ratios when the pressure increased, that suggest a vasoconstriction when the pressure increased. There is also an increase in the values of TBB, T2, T12, and W2 along the protocol, that implies a dependency of some parameters with the pulse-to-pulse interval. Significance: This methodology allows extracting a large set of parameters related with the PPG morphology that are affected by the change of pressure inside hyperbaric environments.

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

4.6
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