Alexandre Descamps, Matthias Jacquet-Lagrèze, Thomas Aussal, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Martin Ruste
{"title":"DiCART<sup>TM</sup> device to measure capillary refill time: a validation study in patients with acute circulatory failure.","authors":"Alexandre Descamps, Matthias Jacquet-Lagrèze, Thomas Aussal, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Martin Ruste","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01271-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Capillary Refill Time (CRT) is a valuable metric to assess cutaneous perfusion. Its prognostic value in patients with acute circulatory failure has been reported as improved when the measurement is standardized. The DiCART™ device is a fully automated CRT measurement tool requiring validation. We conducted a comparative interventional single-center study including 25 patients with acute circulatory failure, to evaluate the agreement between CRT measured by an automated measurement device (CRT<sub>DiCART</sub>) and CRT measured clinically (CRT<sub>CLIN</sub>). CRT was measured on the fingertip, chest, and knee. Three measurements were performed at each location to obtain an average for each site. The measurements were conducted both clinically and using the DiCART™ device by two different operators, each blinded to the results. Agreement was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman analysis. The ICC between CRT<sub>CLIN</sub> and CRT<sub>DiCART</sub> was 0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32, 0.59) across all measurement sites; the mean bias was 0.23s (95% CI -0.17, 0.64), with upper Limit of Agreement (LoA) 2.77s (95% CI 2.44, 3.20) and lower LoA - 2.30s (-2.73, -1.97). Intra observer ICC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.91) for CRT<sub>CLIN</sub> and 0.43 (95% CI 0.15, 0.64) for CRT<sub>DICART</sub>. Inter observer ICC was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76, 0.92) for CRT<sub>CLIN</sub> and was 0.41 (95% CI 0.14, 0,63) for CRT<sub>DICART</sub>. The DiCART™ device showed poor agreement with clinical CRT in patients with acute circulatory failure, which does not support its use in routine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01271-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Capillary Refill Time (CRT) is a valuable metric to assess cutaneous perfusion. Its prognostic value in patients with acute circulatory failure has been reported as improved when the measurement is standardized. The DiCART™ device is a fully automated CRT measurement tool requiring validation. We conducted a comparative interventional single-center study including 25 patients with acute circulatory failure, to evaluate the agreement between CRT measured by an automated measurement device (CRTDiCART) and CRT measured clinically (CRTCLIN). CRT was measured on the fingertip, chest, and knee. Three measurements were performed at each location to obtain an average for each site. The measurements were conducted both clinically and using the DiCART™ device by two different operators, each blinded to the results. Agreement was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman analysis. The ICC between CRTCLIN and CRTDiCART was 0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32, 0.59) across all measurement sites; the mean bias was 0.23s (95% CI -0.17, 0.64), with upper Limit of Agreement (LoA) 2.77s (95% CI 2.44, 3.20) and lower LoA - 2.30s (-2.73, -1.97). Intra observer ICC was 0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.91) for CRTCLIN and 0.43 (95% CI 0.15, 0.64) for CRTDICART. Inter observer ICC was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76, 0.92) for CRTCLIN and was 0.41 (95% CI 0.14, 0,63) for CRTDICART. The DiCART™ device showed poor agreement with clinical CRT in patients with acute circulatory failure, which does not support its use in routine practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.