Automated closed-loop resuscitation of multiple hemorrhages: a comparison between fuzzy logic and decision table controllers in a sheep model.

Disaster and military medicine Pub Date : 2017-01-09 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40696-016-0029-0
Nicole Ribeiro Marques, Brent J Ford, Muzna N Khan, Michael Kinsky, Donald J Deyo, William J Mileski, Hao Ying, George C Kramer
{"title":"Automated closed-loop resuscitation of multiple hemorrhages: a comparison between fuzzy logic and decision table controllers in a sheep model.","authors":"Nicole Ribeiro Marques,&nbsp;Brent J Ford,&nbsp;Muzna N Khan,&nbsp;Michael Kinsky,&nbsp;Donald J Deyo,&nbsp;William J Mileski,&nbsp;Hao Ying,&nbsp;George C Kramer","doi":"10.1186/s40696-016-0029-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of trauma-related death in the military setting. Definitive surgical treatment of a combat casualty can be delayed and life-saving fluid resuscitation might be necessary in the field. Therefore, improved resuscitation strategies are critically needed for prolonged field and en route care. We developed an automated closed-loop control system capable of titrating fluid infusion to a target endpoint. We used the system to compare the performance of a decision table algorithm (DT) and a fuzzy logic controller (FL) to rescue and maintain the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at a target level during hemorrhages. Fuzzy logic empowered the control algorithm to emulate human expertise. We hypothesized that the FL controller would be more effective and more efficient than the DT algorithm by responding in a more rigid, structured way.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten conscious sheep were submitted to a hemorrhagic protocol of 25 ml/kg over three separate bleeds. Automated resuscitation with lactated Ringer's was initiated 30 min after the first hemorrhage started. The endpoint target was MAP. Group differences were assessed by two-tailed <i>t</i> test and alpha of 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups maintained MAP at similar levels throughout the study. However, the DT group required significantly more fluid than the FL group, 1745 ± 552 ml (42 ± 11 ml/kg) versus 978 ± 397 ml (26 ± 11 ml/kg), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FL controller was more efficient than the DT algorithm and may provide a means to reduce fluid loading. Effectiveness was not different between the two strategies. Automated closed-loop resuscitation can restore and maintain blood pressure in a multi-hemorrhage model of shock.</p>","PeriodicalId":91863,"journal":{"name":"Disaster and military medicine","volume":"3 ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40696-016-0029-0","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disaster and military medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40696-016-0029-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Background: Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of trauma-related death in the military setting. Definitive surgical treatment of a combat casualty can be delayed and life-saving fluid resuscitation might be necessary in the field. Therefore, improved resuscitation strategies are critically needed for prolonged field and en route care. We developed an automated closed-loop control system capable of titrating fluid infusion to a target endpoint. We used the system to compare the performance of a decision table algorithm (DT) and a fuzzy logic controller (FL) to rescue and maintain the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at a target level during hemorrhages. Fuzzy logic empowered the control algorithm to emulate human expertise. We hypothesized that the FL controller would be more effective and more efficient than the DT algorithm by responding in a more rigid, structured way.

Methods: Ten conscious sheep were submitted to a hemorrhagic protocol of 25 ml/kg over three separate bleeds. Automated resuscitation with lactated Ringer's was initiated 30 min after the first hemorrhage started. The endpoint target was MAP. Group differences were assessed by two-tailed t test and alpha of 0.05.

Results: Both groups maintained MAP at similar levels throughout the study. However, the DT group required significantly more fluid than the FL group, 1745 ± 552 ml (42 ± 11 ml/kg) versus 978 ± 397 ml (26 ± 11 ml/kg), respectively (p = 0.03).

Conclusion: The FL controller was more efficient than the DT algorithm and may provide a means to reduce fluid loading. Effectiveness was not different between the two strategies. Automated closed-loop resuscitation can restore and maintain blood pressure in a multi-hemorrhage model of shock.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

多出血自动闭环复苏:模糊逻辑和决策表控制器在绵羊模型中的比较。
背景:出血性休克是军事环境中创伤性死亡的主要原因。战斗伤员的最终手术治疗可能会延迟,在现场可能需要挽救生命的液体复苏。因此,改进的复苏策略对于延长现场和途中护理是至关重要的。我们开发了一个自动闭环控制系统,能够滴定液体输注到目标终点。我们使用该系统来比较决策表算法(DT)和模糊逻辑控制器(FL)在出血期间抢救和维持平均动脉压(MAP)在目标水平上的性能。模糊逻辑使控制算法能够模仿人类的专业知识。我们假设FL控制器通过以更严格、结构化的方式响应,将比DT算法更有效、更高效。方法:10只意识清醒的绵羊在三次单独出血中接受25 ml/kg的出血方案。首次出血后30分钟开始乳酸林格氏液自动复苏。终点目标为MAP。组间差异采用双尾t检验,alpha值为0.05。结果:两组在整个研究过程中MAP维持在相似水平。然而,DT组所需的液体明显多于FL组,分别为1745±552 ml(42±11 ml/kg)和978±397 ml(26±11 ml/kg) (p = 0.03)。结论:FL控制器比DT算法更有效,可提供一种减少流体负荷的方法。两种策略的效果并无差异。自动闭环复苏可以恢复和维持多出血休克模型的血压。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信