4.6 Article

Forehead monitoring of heart rate in neonatal intensive care

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1127419

关键词

photoplethysmogram; PPG; neonatal; heart rate; forehead; reflectance-mode; pulse oximeter Min; 5-Max; 8; NICU (neonatal intensive care unit)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heart rate is an important physiological parameter in critically unwell infants, and measuring it with a forehead-based PPG sensor could help overcome the issue of reduced blood supply to the limbs. This study demonstrates that the forehead is a reliable alternative location for measuring heart rate using the PPG.
Heart rate is an extremely important physiological parameter to measure in critically unwell infants, as it is the main physiological marker that changes in response to a change in infant condition. Heart rate is routinely measured peripherally on a limb with a pulse oximeter. However, when infants are critically unwell, the blood supply to these peripheries is reduced in preference for central perfusion of vital organs such as the brain and heart. Measurement of heart rate with a reflection mode photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor on the forehead could help minimise this problem and make it easier for other important medical equipment, such as cannulas, to be placed on the limbs. This study compares heart rates measured with a forehead-based PPG sensor against a wrist-based PPG sensor in 19 critically unwell infants in neonatal intensive care collecting 198 h of data. The two heart rates were compared using positive percentage agreement, Spearman's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. The forehead PPG sensor showed good agreement with the wrist-based PPG sensor with limits of agreement of 8.44 bpm, bias of -0.22 bpm; positive percentage agreement of 98.87%; and Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.9816. The analysis demonstrates that the forehead is a reliable alternative location for measuring vital signs using the PPG.

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