Evaluation of Miniature Wireless Vital Signs Monitor in a Trauma Intensive Care Unit.

A previous study demonstrated basic proof of principle of the value of a miniature wireless vital signs monitor (MWVSM, MiniMedic, Athena GTX, Des Moines, Iowa) for battlefield triage However, there were unanswered questions related to sensor reliability and uncontrolled conditions in the prehospital environment. This study determined whether MWVSM sensors track vital signs and allow for appropriate triage compared to a gold standard bedside monitor in trauma patients. This was a prospective study in 59 trauma intensive care unit patients. Systolic blood pressure, temperature, heart rate (HR), skin temperature, and pulse oximetry (SpO2) were displayed on a bedside monitor for 60 minutes. Shock index (SI) was calculated. A separate MWVSM monitor was attached to the forehead and finger of each patient. Data from each included pulse wave transit time (PWTT), temperature, HR, SpO2, and a summary status termed "Murphy Factor" (MF), which ranges from 0 to 5. Patients are classified as "routine" if MF = 0 to 1 or SI = 0 to 0.7, "priority" if MF = 2 to 3 or SI = 0.7 to 0.9, and "critical" if MF = 4 to 5 or SI ≥ 0.9. Forehead and finger MWVSM HRs both differed from the monitor (both p < 0.001), but the few beats per minute differences were clinically insignificant. Differences in MWVSM SpO2 (1-7%) and temperature (6-13°F) from the monitor were site specific (all p < 0.001). Forehead PWTT (271 ± 50 ms) was less (p < 0.001) than finger PWTT (315 ± 42 ms); both were dissociated from systolic blood pressure (r(2) < 0.05). The SI distributed patients about equally as "routine," "priority," and "critical," whereas MF overtriaged to "routine" and undertriaged to "critical" for both sensors (all p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that MF does not accurately predict the most critical patients, likely because erroneous PWTT values confound MF calculations. MF and the MWVSM are promising, but require fine-tuning before deployment.

[1]  H. Champion,et al.  Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): Implications for the future of combat casualty care , 2012, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[2]  Matthias Münzberg,et al.  The Shock Index revisited – a fast guide to transfusion requirement? A retrospective analysis on 21,853 patients derived from the TraumaRegister DGU® , 2013, Critical Care.

[3]  C. Schulman,et al.  Novel prehospital monitor with injury acuity alarm to identify trauma patients who require lifesaving intervention , 2014, Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery.

[4]  Robert T Gerhardt,et al.  Prehospital and emergency care research at the US Army Institute of Surgical Research: enabling the next great leap in combat casualty survival. , 2011, U.S. Army Medical Department journal.

[5]  R. Bellamy.  The causes of death in conventional land warfare: implications for combat casualty care research. , 1984, Military medicine.

[6]  Ari Leppaniemi,et al.  A profile of combat injury. , 2003, The Journal of trauma.

[7]  Yuchiao Chang,et al.  Heart rate variability as a triage tool in patients with trauma during prehospital helicopter transport. , 2009, The Journal of trauma.

[8]  J. Holcomb,et al.  Continuous noninvasive tissue oximetry in the early evaluation of the combat casualty: a prospective study. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[9]  Nehemiah T. Liu,et al.  Improving the Prediction of Mortality and the Need for Life-Saving Interventions in Trauma Patients Using Standard Vital Signs With Heart-Rate Variability and Complexity , 2015, Shock.

[10]  L. Blackbourne,et al.  Decreasing killed in action and died of wounds rates in combat wounded. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[11]  Mark L Ryan,et al.  Heart rate variability is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in hemodynamically stable trauma patients. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[12]  L. Blackbourne,et al.  Hypotension is 100 mm Hg on the battlefield. , 2011, American journal of surgery.

[13]  T. Scalea,et al.  Continuously recorded oxygen saturation and heart rate during prehospital transport outperform initial measurement in prediction of mortality after trauma , 2012, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[14]  H. Smithline,et al.  A comparison of the shock index and conventional vital signs to identify acute, critical illness in the emergency department. , 1994, Annals of emergency medicine.

[15]  Jose Salinas,et al.  Utility of Vital Signs, Heart Rate Variability and Complexity, and Machine Learning for Identifying the Need for Lifesaving Interventions in Trauma Patients , 2014, Shock.

[16]  T. Fabian,et al.  New vitals after injury: shock index for the young and age x shock index for the old. , 2008, The Journal of surgical research.

[17]  José Salinas,et al.  Heart-rate complexity for prediction of prehospital lifesaving interventions in trauma patients. , 2008, The Journal of trauma.

[18]  J. Edwards,et al.  Shock index: a re-evaluation in acute circulatory failure. , 1992, Resuscitation.

[19]  M. Rady.  The role of central venous oximetry, lactic acid concentration and shock index in the evaluation of clinical shock: a review. , 1992, Resuscitation.

[20]  G. Mcgwin,et al.  Identifying risk for massive transfusion in the relatively normotensive patient: utility of the prehospital shock index. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[21]  A. Patzak,et al.  Continuous blood pressure measurement using the pulse transit time: Comparison to intra-arterial measurement , 2015, Blood pressure.

[22]  I. Hssain.  Fiche 204 – Shock Index212 , 2015 .

[23]  Leopoldo C. Cancio,et al.  Development and validation of a machine learning algorithm and hybrid system to predict the need for life-saving interventions in trauma patients , 2013, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.