BackgroundPhotoplethysmography (PPG) is a proven way to measure heart rate (HR). This technology is already available in smartphones, which allows measuring HR only by using the smartphone. Given the widespread availability of smartphones, this creates a scalable way to enable mobile HR monitoring. An essential precondition is that these technologies are as reliable and accurate as the current clinical (gold) standards. At this moment, there is no consensus on a gold standard method for the validation of HR apps. This results in different validation processes that do not always reflect the veracious outcome of comparison.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to investigate and describe the necessary elements in validating and comparing HR apps versus standard technology.MethodsThe FibriCheck (Qompium) app was used in two separate prospective nonrandomized studies. In the first study, the HR of the FibriCheck app was consecutively compared with 2 different Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared HR devices: the Nonin oximeter and the AliveCor Mobile ECG. In the second study, a next step in validation was performed by comparing the beat-to-beat intervals of the FibriCheck app to a synchronized ECG recording.ResultsIn the first study, the HR (BPM, beats per minute) of 88 random subjects consecutively measured with the 3 devices showed a correlation coefficient of .834 between FibriCheck and Nonin, .88 between FibriCheck and AliveCor, and .897 between Nonin and AliveCor. A single way analysis of variance (ANOVA; P=.61 was executed to test the hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the HRs as measured by the 3 devices. In the second study, 20,298 (ms) R-R intervals (RRI)–peak-to-peak intervals (PPI) from 229 subjects were analyzed. This resulted in a positive correlation (rs=.993, root mean square deviation [RMSE]=23.04 ms, and normalized root mean square error [NRMSE]=0.012) between the PPI from FibriCheck and the RRI from the wearable ECG. There was no significant difference (P=.92) between these intervals.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the most suitable method for the validation of an HR app is a simultaneous measurement of the HR by the smartphone app and an ECG system, compared on the basis of beat-to-beat analysis. This approach could lead to more correct assessments of the accuracy of HR apps.

Background/Objectives This study aimed to study one-month recovery profile and to identify predictors of Quality of Recovery (QOR) after painful day surgery and investigate the influence of pain therapy on QOR. Methods/Design This is a secondary analysis of a single-centre, randomised controlled trial of 200 patients undergoing ambulatory haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair between January 2016 and March 2017. Primary endpoints were one-month recovery profile and prevalence of poor/good QOR measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the Global Surgical Recovery index and the EuroQol questionnaire at postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4, 7, 14 and 28. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of QOR at POD 7, 14, and 28. Differences in QOR between pain treatment groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results Four weeks after haemorrhoid surgery, inguinal hernia repair, arthroscopic knee and arthroscopic shoulder surgery, good QOR was present in 71%, 76%, 57% and 24% respectively. Poor QOR was present in 5%, 0%, 7% and 29%, respectively. At POD 7 and POD 28, predictors for poor/intermediate QOR were type of surgery and a high postoperative pain level at POD 4. Male gender was another predictor at POD 7. Female gender and having a paid job were also predictors at POD 28. Type of surgery and long term fear of surgery were predictors at POD 14. No significant differences in total FRI scores were found between the two different pain treatment groups. Conclusions The present study shows a procedure-specific variation in recovery profile in the 4-week period after painful day surgery. The best predictors for short-term (POD 7) and long-term (POD 28) poor/intermediate QOR were a high postoperative pain level at POD 4 and type of surgery. Different pain treatment regimens did not result in differences in recovery profile. Trial registration European Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35.

Background: Nowadays, complicated and painful surgical procedures are encouraged to be carried out in an ambulatory setting. Objectives: The current study aimed to assess 4-week postoperative pain profiles of 4 painful ambulatory surgical procedures. We analyzed the prevalence of and reasons for non-adherence and partial adherence of patients to a predefined treatment schedule after the ambulant surgery. Methods: The current study analyzed data from a large randomized trial by evaluating the effect of postoperative pain medication on acute postoperative pain at home during the first 4 postoperative days (POD) in patients scheduled for ambulatory hemorrhoid surgery, shoulder or knee arthroscopy, and inguinal hernia repair. Postoperative pain intensity was assessed at POD 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28 via the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Adherence was assessed on POD 1, 2, 3, and 4. Results: Median average pain scores were above an NRS of 3 during the first postoperative week after shoulder arthroscopy and even above 4 during the first postoperative week after hemorrhoid surgery. 26% of patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy and hemorrhoid surgery still had moderate pain 1 week after surgery. Median average pain scores were below an NRS of 3 during the whole study period after inguinal hernia repair and knee arthroscopy. 24.61% of patients did not use the study medication as prescribed, 5.76% of whom were non-adherent, and 18.85% were partially adherent. Conclusions: Each type of ambulant surgery has its unique postoperative pain profile. New strategies should be developed for pain therapy at home, particularly after the ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery and hemorrhoid surgery. Non-adherence is uncommon if they are provided with a multimodal analgesic home kit together with clear verbal, written instructions, and intensive follow-up.

Background/Objectives Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG) is a minimally invasive CABG procedure with retrograde arterial perfusion. The main objective of this study is to assess neurocognitive outcome after Endo-CABG. Methods/Design In this prospective observational cohort study, patients were categorised into: Endo-CABG (n = 60), a comparative Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) group (n = 60) and a healthy volunteer group (n = 60). A clinical neurological examination was performed both pre- and postoperatively, delirium was assessed postoperatively. A battery of 6 neurocognitive tests, Quality of life (QoL) and the level of depressive feelings were measured at baseline and after 3 months. Patient Satisfaction after Endo-CABG was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), stroke and delirium after Endo-CABG. Secondary endpoints were QOL, patient satisfaction and the incidence of depressive feelings after Endo-CABG. Results In total, 1 patient after Endo-CABG (1.72%) and 1 patient after PCI (1.67%) suffered from stroke during the 3-month follow-up. POCD in a patient is defined as a Reliable Change Index ≤-1.645 or Z-score ≤-1.645 in at least two tests, and was found in respectively 5 and 6 patients 3 months after Endo-CABG and PCI. Total incidence of POCD/stroke was not different (PCI: n= 7 [15.9%]; Endo-CABG: n= 6 [13.0%], p = 0.732). ICU delirium after Endo-CABG was found in 5 (8.6%) patients. QoL increased significantly three months after Endo-CABG and was comparable with QoL level after PCI and in the control group. Patient satisfaction after Endo-CABG and PCI was comparable. At follow-up, the level of depressive feelings was decreased in all groups. Conclusions The incidence of poor neurocognitive outcome, including stroke, POCD and postoperative ICU delirium until three months after Endo-CABG is low and comparable with PCI. Trial registration Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979782)

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract