It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Occult hemorrhages after trauma can be present insidiously, and if not detected early enough can result in patient death. This study evaluated a hemorrhage model on 18 human subjects, comparing the performance of traditional vital signs to multiple off-the-shelf non-invasive biomarkers. A validated lower body negative pressure (LBNP) model was used to induce progression towards hypovolemic cardiovascular instability. Traditional vital signs included mean arterial pressure (MAP), electrocardiography (ECG), plethysmography (Pleth), and the test systems utilized electrical impedance via commercial electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and multifrequency electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) devices. Absolute and relative metrics were used to evaluate the performance in addition to machine learning-based modeling. Relative EIT-based metrics measured on the thorax outperformed vital sign metrics (MAP, ECG, and Pleth) achieving an area-under-the-curve (AUC) of 0.99 (CI 0.95–1.00, 100% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity) at the smallest LBNP change (0–15 mmHg). The best vital sign metric (MAP) at this LBNP change yielded an AUC of 0.6 (CI 0.38–0.79, 100% sensitivity, 25% specificity). Out-of-sample predictive performance from machine learning models were strong, especially when combining signals from multiple technologies simultaneously. EIT, alone or in machine learning-based combination, appears promising as a technology for early detection of progression toward hemodynamic instability.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404)
2 Dartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404); Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, USA (GRID:grid.413480.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0440 749X)
3 Mayo Clinic, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rochester, USA (GRID:grid.66875.3a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0459 167X)
4 Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404); Dartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404); Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, USA (GRID:grid.413480.a) (ISNI:0000 0004 0440 749X)
5 Dartmouth College, Thayer School of Engineering, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404); Dartmouth College, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, USA (GRID:grid.254880.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 2404)