Clinical Evaluation of a Wireless Device for Monitoring Vitals in Newborn Babies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of the Nemocare Raksha (NR), an internet of things (IoT)-enabled device, to continuously monitor vitals for 6 h and its safety in newborns. The accuracy of the device was also compared with the readings from the standard device used in the pediatric ward. METHOD: Forty neonates (either gender) weighing ≥ 1.5 kg were included in the study. Heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature, and oxygen saturation was measured using the NR and compared with standard care devices. Safety was assessed by monitoring for skin changes and local rise in temperature. The neonatal infant pain scale (NIPS) was used to assess pain and discomfort. RESULT: A total of 227 h of observations (5.67 h per baby) were obtained. No discomfort or device-related adverse events were noted during the study period. The mean difference between the NR and the standard monitoring was 0.66 (0.42 to 0.90) for temperature (°C); -6.57 (-8.66 to -4.47) for heart rate (bpm); 7.60 (6.52 to 8.68) for respiratory rate (breaths per minute); -0.79 (-1.10 to -0.48) for oxygen saturation (%). The level of agreement analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was good for heart rate [ICC 0.77 (0.72 to 0.82); p value < 0.001] and oxygen saturation [ICC 0.80 (0.75 to 0.84); p value < 0.001]; moderate for body temperature [ICC 0.54 (0.36 to 0.60); p value < 0.001] and poor for respiratory rate [ICC 0.30 (0.10 to 0.44); p value 0.002]. CONCLUSION: The NR was able to seamlessly monitor vital parameters in neonates without any safety concern. The device showed a good level of agreement for heart rate and oxygen saturation among the four parameters measured.

Comparing Bridging Thrombolysis with Direct Thrombectomy in Stroke due to Large Vessel Occlusion- Indian Experience (LVO-Direct).

Objectives: Intravenous thrombolysis alone has poor recanalization rates in large vessel occlusion strokes. Bridging thrombolysis has evolved as a standard treatment approach in emergent large vessel occlusions. Patients who undergo thrombectomy have a higher probability of favorable outcomes irrespective of the use of prior intravenous thrombolysis. Our aim was to compare bridging thrombolysis with direct thrombectomy in ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. Methods: We included patients from our stroke registry, with large vessel occlusion strokes, presenting <4.5 hr from onset. Bridging thrombolysis was the standard approach. Direct thrombectomy was done in patients with contraindications to intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were National Institute of Health Stroke Scale at 24 hr post-procedure, door to puncture time, puncture to recanalization time, the extent of recanalization, and the number of passes required. Safety outcomes were any occurrence of intracranial hemorrhage or other complications related to procedure or death. Logistic regression analysis was used to find the factors affecting the outcome. Results: Total 76 patients were included, 29 underwent bridging thrombolysis and 47 underwent direct thrombectomy. A favorable outcome (mRS 0-2) was achieved in 19 (65.5%) patients in the bridging group and 25 (58.1%) patients in the direct group (P = 0.4, Chi-square test). There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes as well. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 (2.6%) patients and a total of 10 (13.9%) were dead at 3-month follow-up, comparable in both groups. Conclusion: Direct thrombectomy has comparable outcomes to bridging thrombolysis in emergent large vessel occlusions.