Comparative accuracy of a wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) versus standard EKG during resuscitation of very premature neonates.

IF 4.6 1区医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Resuscitation Pub Date : 2025-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110792

Kasim Hassen, Kaitlyn Fitzgerald, Felix Ines, Anup C Katheria

{"title":"Comparative accuracy of a wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) versus standard EKG during resuscitation of very premature neonates.","authors":"Kasim Hassen, Kaitlyn Fitzgerald, Felix Ines, Anup C Katheria","doi":"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Rapid and accurate heart rate assessment is essential in neonatal resuscitation, particularly for very premature infants where delays can impact timely intervention. A wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) device has been validated in term babies but not in smaller preterm infants. We sought to validate the use of the Neobeat device compared to standard EKG in extremely preterm neonates during resuscitation.Methods: A prospective observational study of very premature neonates undergoing routine resuscitation was conducted at a tertiary care center. Heart rate data were simultaneously recorded using the NeoBeat wireless monitor and a standard three-lead EKG.Results: Thirty very preterm infants (gestational age, (GA) 26.6 ± 1.9 weeks and birth weight range (250-1310 g)) were enrolled. A total of 1690 heart rate pairs were analyzed. A strong correlation and tracking observed between NeoBeat and EKG-derived heart rates (Pearson r = 0.96, Spearman ρ = 0.95), with a mean absolute difference of 3.76 beats per minute (bpm). Correlation remained robust across different resuscitation interventions (Intubation: r = 0.93 vs. No Intubation: r = 0.90, p = 0.207, PPV: r = 0.93 vs. No PPV: r = 0.87, p = 0.726).Conclusion: In very preterm infants, NeoBeat wireless monitor achieved 96 % precision (r = 0.96) and maintained a mean absolute difference of 3.76 bpm compared to EKG, supporting its reliability and accuracy for real time neonatal monitoring, including infants weighing as little as 250 g, though statistical power in this range was limited. Randomized studies comparing NeoBeat to standard EKG are warranted to confirm these findings in extremely preterm infants and explore whether NeoBeat improves clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":21052,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation","volume":" ","pages":"110792"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12439110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110792","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid and accurate heart rate assessment is essential in neonatal resuscitation, particularly for very premature infants where delays can impact timely intervention. A wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) device has been validated in term babies but not in smaller preterm infants. We sought to validate the use of the Neobeat device compared to standard EKG in extremely preterm neonates during resuscitation.

Methods: A prospective observational study of very premature neonates undergoing routine resuscitation was conducted at a tertiary care center. Heart rate data were simultaneously recorded using the NeoBeat wireless monitor and a standard three-lead EKG.

Results: Thirty very preterm infants (gestational age, (GA) 26.6 ± 1.9 weeks and birth weight range (250-1310 g)) were enrolled. A total of 1690 heart rate pairs were analyzed. A strong correlation and tracking observed between NeoBeat and EKG-derived heart rates (Pearson r = 0.96, Spearman ρ = 0.95), with a mean absolute difference of 3.76 beats per minute (bpm). Correlation remained robust across different resuscitation interventions (Intubation: r = 0.93 vs. No Intubation: r = 0.90, p = 0.207, PPV: r = 0.93 vs. No PPV: r = 0.87, p = 0.726).

Conclusion: In very preterm infants, NeoBeat wireless monitor achieved 96 % precision (r = 0.96) and maintained a mean absolute difference of 3.76 bpm compared to EKG, supporting its reliability and accuracy for real time neonatal monitoring, including infants weighing as little as 250 g, though statistical power in this range was limited. Randomized studies comparing NeoBeat to standard EKG are warranted to confirm these findings in extremely preterm infants and explore whether NeoBeat improves clinical outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无线心率监测仪（NeoBeat）与标准心电图在早产儿复苏中的比较准确性。

背景：快速准确的心率评估在新生儿复苏中至关重要，特别是对于延迟可能影响及时干预的早产儿。无线心率监测仪（NeoBeat）设备已在足月婴儿中得到验证，但尚未在较小的早产儿中得到验证。我们试图验证Neobeat设备与标准心电图在极早产儿复苏期间的应用。方法：在某三级保健中心对接受常规复苏的极早产儿进行前瞻性观察研究。使用NeoBeat无线监护仪和标准三导联心电图同时记录心率数据。结果：入选极早产儿30例（胎龄（GA） 26.6±1.9周，出生体重（250-1310 g））。总共分析了1690对心率。NeoBeat和心电图得出的心率之间有很强的相关性和跟踪性（Pearson r = 0.96, Spearman ρ=0.95），平均绝对差值为3.76次/分钟（bpm）。不同复苏干预措施之间的相关性仍然很强（插管：r=0.93 vs.无插管：r=0.90, p= 0.207, PPV: r=0.93 vs.无PPV: r= 0.87, p=0.726）。结论：在极早产儿中，NeoBeat无线监护仪的准确率达到96% (r=0.96)，与心电图相比，其平均绝对差值为3.76 bpm，支持其实时新生儿监护的可靠性和准确性，包括体重仅为250克的婴儿，尽管该范围的统计能力有限。将NeoBeat与标准心电图进行比较的随机研究有必要证实这些发现，并探讨NeoBeat是否能改善临床结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Resuscitation 医学-急救医学

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

18.50%

发文量

556

审稿时长

21 days

期刊介绍： Resuscitation is a monthly international and interdisciplinary medical journal. The papers published deal with the aetiology, pathophysiology and prevention of cardiac arrest, resuscitation training, clinical resuscitation, and experimental resuscitation research, although papers relating to animal studies will be published only if they are of exceptional interest and related directly to clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Papers relating to trauma are published occasionally but the majority of these concern traumatic cardiac arrest.