与固定式激光多普勒流量计相比,便携式足趾压力光容积描记仪的可靠性。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Vascular Pub Date : 2024-12-02 DOI:10.1177/17085381241305192
Perttu Laamanen, Mirjami Laivuori, Katariina Noronen, Maarit Venermo
{"title":"与固定式激光多普勒流量计相比,便携式足趾压力光容积描记仪的可靠性。","authors":"Perttu Laamanen, Mirjami Laivuori, Katariina Noronen, Maarit Venermo","doi":"10.1177/17085381241305192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to investigate the reliability of a portable toe pressure (TP) photoplethysmography device (PPG) by comparing it to a stationary laser Doppler flowmeter (LD) used in the Helsinki University Hospital. The study evaluated if lower limb arterial circulation could be reliably evaluated with the portable PPG which is more affordable and mobile than the stationary LD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>TPs were measured from 102 toes of 54 patients in the vascular surgery outpatient clinic, vascular surgery ward and interventional radiology recovery ward of Helsinki University Hospital. According to the study protocol TPs were measured twice with the PPG device. If the difference between the values was over 10 mmHg, a third measurement was done and two of the closest values were selected for the final analysis. The lowest value displayed by the PPG device was 30 mmHg. Lower than 30 mmHg values were reported as 25 mmHg in the analysis. The repeatability and reliability of the PPG measurements were compared to the LD with Bland Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients had rest pain (<i>n</i> = 29) or claudication (<i>n</i> = 9). Prior to TP measurement, 24 patients had undergone lower limb revascularization through either a hybrid (<i>n</i> = 3), open (<i>n</i> = 10) or endovascular (<i>n</i> = 11) procedure. The mean absolute difference between PPG and LD measurement values was 15 mmHg (95% confidence interval 12-18 mmHg). 87.5% of lower limbs with significant arterial insufficiency (TP <60 mmHg with LD, <i>n</i> = 49) had a PPG measurement value of <60 mmHg. Conversely, 84.8% of lower limbs that did not exceed the ischemia criterion of TP ≥60 mmHg with LD had a PPG measurement value of ≥60 mmHg. Mean absolute difference of two consecutive PPG measurement values was 4 mmHg (95% CI 3-5 mmHg).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PPG device is a light and affordable option for the assessment of lower limb arterial circulation in primary health care. It is moderately reliable to exclude significant lower limb arterial insufficiency and may reduce unnecessary referrals to the vascular surgery clinic. The repeatability of the PPG device is satisfactory. However, it requires training to use, and the results must always be interpreted with consideration for the patient's clinical status.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"17085381241305192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of a portable toe pressure photoplethysmography device compared to a stationary laser doppler flowmeter.\",\"authors\":\"Perttu Laamanen, Mirjami Laivuori, Katariina Noronen, Maarit Venermo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17085381241305192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to investigate the reliability of a portable toe pressure (TP) photoplethysmography device (PPG) by comparing it to a stationary laser Doppler flowmeter (LD) used in the Helsinki University Hospital. The study evaluated if lower limb arterial circulation could be reliably evaluated with the portable PPG which is more affordable and mobile than the stationary LD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>TPs were measured from 102 toes of 54 patients in the vascular surgery outpatient clinic, vascular surgery ward and interventional radiology recovery ward of Helsinki University Hospital. According to the study protocol TPs were measured twice with the PPG device. If the difference between the values was over 10 mmHg, a third measurement was done and two of the closest values were selected for the final analysis. The lowest value displayed by the PPG device was 30 mmHg. Lower than 30 mmHg values were reported as 25 mmHg in the analysis. The repeatability and reliability of the PPG measurements were compared to the LD with Bland Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients had rest pain (<i>n</i> = 29) or claudication (<i>n</i> = 9). Prior to TP measurement, 24 patients had undergone lower limb revascularization through either a hybrid (<i>n</i> = 3), open (<i>n</i> = 10) or endovascular (<i>n</i> = 11) procedure. The mean absolute difference between PPG and LD measurement values was 15 mmHg (95% confidence interval 12-18 mmHg). 87.5% of lower limbs with significant arterial insufficiency (TP <60 mmHg with LD, <i>n</i> = 49) had a PPG measurement value of <60 mmHg. Conversely, 84.8% of lower limbs that did not exceed the ischemia criterion of TP ≥60 mmHg with LD had a PPG measurement value of ≥60 mmHg. Mean absolute difference of two consecutive PPG measurement values was 4 mmHg (95% CI 3-5 mmHg).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PPG device is a light and affordable option for the assessment of lower limb arterial circulation in primary health care. It is moderately reliable to exclude significant lower limb arterial insufficiency and may reduce unnecessary referrals to the vascular surgery clinic. The repeatability of the PPG device is satisfactory. However, it requires training to use, and the results must always be interpreted with consideration for the patient's clinical status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17085381241305192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241305192\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241305192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过与赫尔辛基大学医院使用的固定式激光多普勒流量计(LD)进行比较,探讨便携式足趾压力(TP)光容积脉搏描记仪(PPG)的可靠性。方法:对赫尔辛基大学医院血管外科门诊、血管外科病房和介入放射康复病房54例患者102个脚趾的TPs进行测量。根据研究方案,用PPG装置测量TPs两次。如果两个值之间的差异超过10毫米汞柱,则进行第三次测量,并选择两个最接近的值进行最终分析。PPG设备显示的最低值为30mmhg。在分析中,低于30 mmHg的值被报告为25 mmHg。用Bland Altman图将PPG测量结果的重复性和可靠性与LD进行比较。结果:大多数患者有静息性疼痛(n = 29)或跛行(n = 9)。在TP测量之前,24例患者通过混合(n = 3)、开放(n = 10)或血管内(n = 11)手术进行了下肢血运重建术。PPG和LD测量值的平均绝对差值为15 mmHg(95%置信区间12-18 mmHg)。87.5%的下肢明显动脉不全患者(TP = 49)的PPG测量值为:结论:PPG装置是初级卫生保健中评估下肢动脉循环的一种轻便、经济的选择。它是中等可靠的排除明显的下肢动脉不全,并可能减少不必要的转诊到血管外科诊所。PPG装置的重复性令人满意。然而,它需要经过培训才能使用,并且必须始终考虑到患者的临床状态来解释结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of a portable toe pressure photoplethysmography device compared to a stationary laser doppler flowmeter.

Objective: The study aimed to investigate the reliability of a portable toe pressure (TP) photoplethysmography device (PPG) by comparing it to a stationary laser Doppler flowmeter (LD) used in the Helsinki University Hospital. The study evaluated if lower limb arterial circulation could be reliably evaluated with the portable PPG which is more affordable and mobile than the stationary LD.

Methods: TPs were measured from 102 toes of 54 patients in the vascular surgery outpatient clinic, vascular surgery ward and interventional radiology recovery ward of Helsinki University Hospital. According to the study protocol TPs were measured twice with the PPG device. If the difference between the values was over 10 mmHg, a third measurement was done and two of the closest values were selected for the final analysis. The lowest value displayed by the PPG device was 30 mmHg. Lower than 30 mmHg values were reported as 25 mmHg in the analysis. The repeatability and reliability of the PPG measurements were compared to the LD with Bland Altman plots.

Results: Most patients had rest pain (n = 29) or claudication (n = 9). Prior to TP measurement, 24 patients had undergone lower limb revascularization through either a hybrid (n = 3), open (n = 10) or endovascular (n = 11) procedure. The mean absolute difference between PPG and LD measurement values was 15 mmHg (95% confidence interval 12-18 mmHg). 87.5% of lower limbs with significant arterial insufficiency (TP <60 mmHg with LD, n = 49) had a PPG measurement value of <60 mmHg. Conversely, 84.8% of lower limbs that did not exceed the ischemia criterion of TP ≥60 mmHg with LD had a PPG measurement value of ≥60 mmHg. Mean absolute difference of two consecutive PPG measurement values was 4 mmHg (95% CI 3-5 mmHg).

Conclusions: The PPG device is a light and affordable option for the assessment of lower limb arterial circulation in primary health care. It is moderately reliable to exclude significant lower limb arterial insufficiency and may reduce unnecessary referrals to the vascular surgery clinic. The repeatability of the PPG device is satisfactory. However, it requires training to use, and the results must always be interpreted with consideration for the patient's clinical status.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Vascular
Vascular 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.
×
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