RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Continuous, ambulatory perioperative monitoring using wearable devices has shown promise for earlier detection of physiological deterioration and postoperative complications, preventing 'failure-to-rescue'. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of vital signs measured by wrist-based wearables with gold standard measurements from vital signs monitors or nurse assessments in major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Adult patients were eligible for inclusion in this prospective observational study validating the Empatica E4 wrist sensor intraoperatively and postoperatively. The primary outcomes were the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between manual and device recordings of heart rate (HR) and temperature evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis. Secondary analysis was conducted using Clarke-Error grid analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 31 patients were recruited, and 27 patients completed the study. The median duration of recording per patient was 70.3 h, and a total of 2112 h of data recording were completed. Wrist-based HR measurement was accurate and moderately precise (bias: 0.3 bpm; 95% LoA -15.5 to 17.1), but temperature measurement was neither accurate nor precise (bias -2.2°C; 95% LoA -6.0 to 1.6). On Clarke-Error grid analysis, 74.5% and 29.6% of HR and temperature measurements, respectively, fell within the acceptable range of reference standards. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous perioperative monitoring of HR and temperature after major abdominal surgery using wrist-based sensors is feasible but was limited in this study by low precision. While wrist-based devices offer promise for the continuous monitoring of high-risk surgical patients, current technology is inadequate. Ongoing device hardware and software innovation with robust validation is required before such technologies can be routinely adopted in clinical practice.
