RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Early detection of physiological deterioration in post-surgical patients using wearable technology combined with an integrated monitoring system: a pre- and post-interventional study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.01.20240770
DO 10.1101/2020.12.01.20240770
A1 Peter J Watkinson
A1 Marco AF Pimentel
A1 Lei Clifton
A1 David A Clifton
A1 Sarah Vollam
A1 Duncan Young
A1 Lionel Tarassenko
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2020.12.01.20240770.abstract
AB Objectives Late recognition of physiological deterioration is a frequent problem in hospital wards. We assessed whether ambulatory (wearable) physiological monitoring combined with a system that continuously merges physiological variables into a single “risk” score (VSI), changed care and outcome in patients after major surgery.Design Pre- and post-interventional study.Setting A single centre tertiary referral university hospital upper-gastrointestinal service.Participants Patients who underwent major upper-gastrointestinal surgery.Interventions Phase-I (pre-intervention phase): Patients received continuous wearable monitoring and standard care, but the VSI score was not available for clinical use. Phase-II (post-intervention phase): Patients received continuous wearable monitoring. In addition to standard care the VSI score was displayed for use in clinical practice.Measurements and Main Results 200 participants were monitored in phase-I. 207 participants were monitored in phase-II. Participants were monitored (median, interquartile range, IQR) for 30.2% (13.8-49.2) of available time in phase-I and 58.2% (33.1-75.2) of available time in phase-II.Clinical staff recorded observations more frequently in the 36 hours prior to a major adverse event (death, cardiac arrest or unplanned admission to intensive care) for phase-II participants (median, IQR, time between observations of 1.00, 0.50-2.08 hours) than phase-I participants (1.50, 0.75-2.50 hours, p<0.001). There was no difference in observation frequency between the two phases for participants who did not undergo an adverse event (p=0.129). 6/200 participants died before hospital discharge in phase-I, 1/207 participants died in hospital in phase-II. 20 (10.0%) patients in phase-I and 26 (12.6%) patients in phase-II had an unplanned admission to intensive care. Ward length-of-stay was unaltered (8.91, 6.71-14.02 days in phase-I, vs. 8.97, 5.99-13.85 days in phase-II, p=0.327).Conclusion The combination of the integrated monitoring system with ambulatory monitoring in high-risk post-surgical patients improved recognition and management of deteriorating patients without increasing the observation rate in those patients who did not deteriorate.Competing Interest StatementPW and LT report significant grants from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), UK and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, during the conduct of the study. PW and LT report modest grants and personal fees from Sensyne Health, outside the submitted work. LT works part-time for Sensyne Health and has share options in the company. PW holds shares in the company.Clinical TrialEudraCT No: 2011-000928-15Funding StatementThe CALMS-2 trial was funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Programme, Oxford. We purchased the real-time risk score monitoring system form OBS Medical. Both the NIHR and the company had no role in the management, data collection, analyses or interpretation of the data or in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. MAFP was funded by the RCUK Digital Economy Programme and FCT (Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia) under the grant SFRH/BD/79799/2011. DAC was funded by the Wellcome Trust and EPSRC under grant number WT 088877/Z/09/Z.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the local ethics committee (Oxford Research Ethics Committee OxREC No: 08/H0607/79).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesN/A