ABSTRACT
The purpose of this review is to summarize the research on the accuracy of oxygen saturation (spO2) measurements using the Apple Watch (Apple Inc., Cupertino, California). The Medline and Google Scholar databases were searched for papers evaluating the spO2 measurements of the Apple Watch vs. any kind of ground truth and records were analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The five publications with 973 total patients that met the inclusion criteria all used the Apple Watch Series 6 and described 95% limits of agreement of +/- 2.7 to 5.9% spO2. However, outliers of up to 15% spO2 were reported. Only one study had patient-level data uploaded to a public repository. The Apple Watch Series 6 does not show a strong systematic bias compared to conventional, medical-grade pulse oximeters. However, outliers do occur and should not cause concern in otherwise healthy individuals. The impact of race on measurement accuracy should be investigated.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: COVID-19 infection has manifested as a major threat to both patients and healthcare providers around the world. Radiation oncology institutions (ROI) deliver a major component of cancer treatment, with protocols that might span over several weeks, with the result of increasing susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and presenting with a more severe clinical course when compared with the general population. The aim of this manuscript is to investigate the impact of ROI protocols and performance on daily practice in the high-risk cancer patients during this pandemic. METHODS: We addressed the incidence of positive COVID-19 cases in both patients and health care workers (HCW), in addition to the protective measures adopted in ROIs in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using a specific questionnaire. RESULTS: The results of the questionnaire showed that a noteworthy number of ROIs were able to complete treatment in SARS-CoV2 positive cancer patients, with only a short interruption. The ROIs reported a significant decrease in patient volume that was not impacted by the circumambient disease incidence, the type of ROI or the occurrence of positive cases. Of the ROIs 16.5% also reported infected HCWs. About half of the ROIs (50.5%) adopted a screening program for patients whereas only 23.3% also screened their HCWs. The range of protective measures included the creation of working groups, instituting home office work and protection with face masks. Regarding the therapeutic options offered, curative procedures were performed with either unchanged or moderately decreased schedules, whereas palliative or benign radiotherapy procedures were more often shortened. Most ROIs postponed or cancelled radiation treatment for benign indications (88.1%). The occurrence of SARS-CoV2 infections did not affect the treatment options for curative procedures. Non-university-based ROIs seemed to be more willing to change their treatment options for curative and palliative cases than university-based ROIs. CONCLUSION: Most ROIs reported a deep impact of SARS-CoV2 infections on their work routine. Modification and prioritization of treatment regimens and the application of protective measures preserved a well-functioning radiation oncology service and patient care.