Cardiac Disease, Coronavirus, Respiratory Disease, Vascular Diseases
Conditions
Keywords
oximetry, pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, remote photoplethysmography, coronavirus
Brief summary
Contactless and widely available health monitoring technologies are of growing interest in the context of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. Remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) is a well-studied technology that interprets variations in skin colour related to blood flow which, when analysed with complex mathematical algorithm, generates vital sign readings. This technology has been refined and embedded in a smartphone app designed to acquire heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation using a front-facing smartphone camera. Preliminary data comparing the accuracy of smartphone rPPG readings with conventional vital sign monitor readings are promising; however, less than 5% of the population studied in the app development phase had oxygen saturation levels below 95% making it impossible to ensure reliability in these populations. The goal of this study is to compare readings acquired using this rPPG app with the readings from hospital grade, Health Canada approved vital signs monitors used in healthcare settings with a focus on subject with low oxygen saturations. We will also study other sociodemographic and clinical features that may influence the accuracy of the readings. This will be achieved by recruiting consenting adults presenting to care in acute care settings and a designated COVID outpatient clinic. Vital signs will be acquired using the rPPG app and conventional hospital vital sign monitors simultaneously. Readings will be repeated within 2-5 minutes when time permits. Statistical analysis will be performed to analyze the findings and determine the accuracy and precision of the rPPG app readings. It is expected that the vital sign readings acquired with the rPPG app will be almost identical to those acquired using hospital-grade monitors for all subjects regardless of age, gender, skin colour, COVID status and relevant comorbidities.
Interventions
DEVICERemote Photoplethysmography (rPPG) vital sign acquisition
Subject vital signs will be acquired using the rPPG app simultaneously with the conventional vital sign monitors and manual respiratory rate calculation.
Sponsors
Carebook Technologies Inc.
Lady Davis Institute
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Subjects enrolled in the study will be undergoing vital sign monitoring with the rPPG vital sign monitoring app and the conventional vital sign monitor. Readings with each vital sign monitoring technology will be taken simultaneously on all enrolled subjects.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Persons willing to participate and capable of providing informed consent, age of 18 years of more. * Person able to sit still for the duration of the reading (maximum 2 minutes per reading). * Persons with freckles, discreet skin pigmentation changes
Exclusion criteria
* Unable to provide informed consent * Persons who are unable to follow basic instructions due to altered mental status, delirium, dementia or other conditions. * Age \< 18 * Intubated patients and patients requiring masks for supplemental oxygen * Persons refusing to remove masks, eyewear, or clothing obstructing the face for the duration of readings. * Persons with facial tattoos, large birthmarks or other skin alterations (scars, hemangiomas) on their nose or upper cheeks (cheekbones).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of rPPG heart rate | immediate; paired reading | Accuracy of rPPG heart rate compared to conventional vital sign monitor heart rate readings. Comparison of each paired reading. |
| Accuracy of rPPG respiratory rate | immediate; paired reading | Accuracy of rPPG respiratory rate compared to manual counting of respiratory rate over 60 seconds. Comparison of discrepancy within each paired reading set. |
| Accuracy of rPPG oxygen saturation | immediate; paired reading | Accuracy of rPPG oxygen saturation compared to conventional vital sign monitor oxygen saturation readings. Comparison of discrepancy within each paired reading set. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Reproducibility of rPPG heart rate readings | 2-5 minutes | Comparison of rPPG heart rate results obtained on a given patient on serial readings within 2 minutes of each other. |
| Reproducibility of rPPG oxygen saturation readings | 2-5 minutes | Comparison of rPPG oxygen saturation results obtained on a given patient on serial readings within 2 minutes of each other. |
| Reproducibility of rPPG respiratory rate readings | 2-5 minutes | Comparison of rPPG respiratory rate results obtained on a given patient on serial readings within 2 minutes of each other. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of rPPG readings by gender | immediate; stratified analysis | Analysis of accuracy of rPPG vital sign readings when stratified for gender |
| Accuracy of rPPG readings by skin colour | immediate; stratified analysis | Analysis of accuracy of rPPG vital sign readings when stratified by skin colour per the Fitzpatrick scale |
| Accuracy of rPPG readings by age | immediate; stratified analysis | Analysis of accuracy of rPPG vital sign readings when stratified by age group |
| Accuracy of rPPG readings by comorbidity | immediate; stratified analysis | Analysis of accuracy of rPPG vital sign readings when stratified for COVID, respiratory conditions, cardiac conditions and vascular conditions. |
| Accuracy of rPPG readings by oxygen saturation level | immediate; stratified analysis | Analysis of accuracy of rPPG vital sign readings when stratified by oxygen saturation per conventional monitors stratified as follows: 95-100%; 90-94%; 85-89%; Less than 85% |
Contacts
Primary ContactNoura Hassan, MD, MPH
Outcome results
None listed