ABSTRACT
Objective: To conduct a preliminary evaluation for the usability of Carelink remote monitoring system by clinical physician. Methods: A total of 215 patients received cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) with Carelink remote monitoring function from 12 hospitals in China between 2012-01 and 2013-10 were prospectively enrolled. The patient's mean age was (62.3±14.3) years including 108 male and 107 female. There were 54 physicians completed questionnaire survey. Based on the type of CIED, the patients were divided into3 groups: PM (pace maker) group,n=110, ICD (implantable cardioverter defibrillator) group,n=54 and CRT (cardiac resynchronization therapy) group,n=51. The patients received routine hospital visit at 3 months of CIED implantation and meanwhile, they performed device data transmission at 3 and 6 months of Carelink remote monitoring. The time physician spent to evaluate data was collected at 3 months and the questionnaire survey was completed by physician at 6 months after CIED implantation. Results: All 54 physicians felt that Carelink remote monitoring system was simple to operate and easy to use. There were 147 patients ifnished hospital visit at 3 months after CIED implantation, the mean time for physician to evaluate data was (14.8±8.4) min; 150 patients ifnished Carelink remote monitor at 3 months after CIED implantation, the mean time for physician to evaluate data was (8.2 ±4.6) min,P<0.0001.Conclusion: Carelink remote monitoring system was easy to use, it may save time in follow-up study which with high satisfaction in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In recent years, a variety of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) evaluation systems have been developed worldwide; however, they are not so convenient for the doctors clinically, we decided to establish and evaluate a simplified evaluation system of ARDS (SESARDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 140 ARDS patients (derivation data set) were collected to screen for prognostic factors affecting outcomes in ARDS patients. By logistic regression analysis, scores were allocated to corresponding intervals of the variables, respectively, by means of analysis of the frequency distribution to establish a preliminary scoring system. Based on this primary scoring system, a definitive evaluation scheme was created through consultation with a panel of experts. The scores for the validation data set (92 cases) were assigned and calculated by their predictive mortality with the SESARDS and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II). The performance of SESARDS was compared with that of APACHE II by means of statistical analysis. RESULTS: The factors of age, pH, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), oxygenation index (OI), and the lobes of lung were associated with prognosis of ARDS respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SESARDS for the validation data set were 96.43% and 58.33%, respectively. On the AUC, no significant difference between APACHE II and SESARDS was detected. There were no significant differences between the prediction and the actuality obtained by SESARDS for the validation data set the SESARDS scores were positively correlated with the actual mortality. CONCLUSION: SESARDS was shown to be simple, accurate and effective in predicting ARDS progression.