Dyspnea
Conditions
Keywords
dyspnea, COPD, CHF, asthma
Brief summary
For the patient with acute dyspnea in the ED, early differentiation between CHF and non-CHF causes is essential for proper management. The capacity to triage patients quickly and accurately has a beneficial impact upon outcome, disposition, stratification and length of stay in the ED and required length of hospital admission. The ability to assess pulmonary status rapidly by quantitative regional vibration technology offers significant potential advantage for earlier diagnosis. The VRI technique may provide a quick and accurate method of differentiating between dyspnea due to HF and dyspnea due to pulmonary causes; thereby improving management and outcomes.
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
Deep Breeze
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
41 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Able and willing to provide Informed Consent; -\>40 years of age; * Estimated Body Mass Index \>19; * Patient presented to the emergency department with a chief complaint of acute dyspnea.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients with obvious trauma or acute anxiety as a cause of dyspnea; * Patient has already received directed therapy in the ED and symptoms are remarkably improved; * Physician concern regarding possible harm to patient caused by positioning or ambulating the patient for VRI testing; * Intubated or mechanically ventilated; * Acute hemodynamic or ventilator instability requiring immediate resuscitation; * Body habitus or skin condition that might prevent the placement of the sound sensors on the back (e.g. severe scoliosis, kyphosis, chest wall deformation, skin lesion on the back or compression fracture); * Hirsutism.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Assess the ability of the VRI to improve clinical outcomes via accurate, early classification of the cause of acute dyspnea as HF or other (i.e. COPD, PE etc). | Baseline testing at ED presentation | The primary efficacy analysis set (PEAS) consists of all patients who have Gold Standard (GS) diagnosis (CHF/non-CHF) & VRI records. * Accuracy rate is defined as the accuracy between the GS and VRI. * Accuracy parameters between the GS and VRI will be calculated using accuracy rate, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) & likelihood ratios (+,-). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Assess the agreement to aid in classifying the cause of acute dyspnea as HF or other of the VRI in comparison to BNP/NTproBNP assays. | Baseline testing at ED presentation | The secondary efficacy analysis set (SEAS) consists of all patients who have final diagnosis (CHF/non-CHF), BNP/NT-proBNP & VRI results. * Agreement rate (2X2 agreement table) between BNP/NT-proBNP (based on separate decision cut-offs for each assay) and VRI will be calculated for dyspnea due to CHF or other causes. * The discordant observations (from the agreement table) will be further evaluated between the VRI and GS. * Logistic regression will be used in order to find the significance and strength contribution of the VRI and the BNP on the goal-function. |
| Assess the ability of the VRI to aid in classifying the cause of acute dyspnea as HF or COPD | Baseline testing at ED presentation | The tertiary efficacy analysis set (TEAS) consists of all patients who have final diagnosis (CHF/COPD) & VRI results. -Similar to the previous objectives - accuracy (with the GS) and agreement rates (with BNP/NT-proBNP); comparisons based only on CHF and COPD patients. |
| Evaluate the ability of the VRI to monitor changes in clinical status following treatment in comparison with other standard testing methods (e.g. ECG, serial chest x-rays, etc.) | Baseline testing and repeated testing after 2 hours | The fourth efficacy analysis set consists of patients who have baseline & after treatment follow-up clinical data & VRI recordings. * Descriptive statistics will be used in order to evaluate the changes following treatment in comparison to baseline condition. * The changes will be categorized to status of improved, worse or same and will be compared, when available, to existing tools. |
Countries
Israel, United States
Contacts
Primary ContactCharles V. Pollack, MD
Outcome results
None listed