4.6 Article

Novel Bloodless Potassium Determination Using a Signal-Processed Single-Lead ECG

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.002746

关键词

electrophysiology; potassium; waves

资金

  1. Mayo Clinic Discovery Translation Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Hyper-and hypokalemia are clinically silent, common in patients with renal or cardiac disease, and are life threatening. A noninvasive, unobtrusive, blood-free method for tracking potassium would be an important clinical advance. Methods and Results-Two groups of hemodialysis patients (development group, n= 26; validation group, n= 19) underwent highresolution digital ECG recordings and had 2 to 3 blood tests during dialysis. Using advanced signal processing, we developed a personalized regression model for each patient to noninvasively calculate potassiumvalues during the second and third dialysis sessions using only the processed single-channel ECG. In addition, by analyzing the entire development group's first-visit data, we created a global model for all patients that was validated against subsequent sessions in the development group and in a separate validation group. This global model sought to predict potassium, based on the T wave characteristics, with no blood tests required. For the personalized model, we successfully calculated potassium values with an absolute error of 0.36 +/- 0.34 mmol/L (or 10% of the measured blood potassium). For the global model, potassium prediction was also accurate, with an absolute error of 0.44 +/- 0.47 mmol/L for the training group (or 11% of the measured blood potassium) and 0.5 +/- 0.42 for the validation set (or 12% of the measured blood potassium). Conclusions-The signal-processed ECG derived from a single lead can be used to calculate potassium values with clinically meaningful resolution using a strategy that requires no blood tests. This enables a cost-effective, noninvasive, unobtrusive strategy for potassium assessment that can be used during remote monitoring.

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