Back

High-Fidelity Measurement of Pulse Arrival Time in Critically Ill Children Using Standard Bedside Monitoring Equipment

Ruffolo, I.; Siddiqui, A.; Nguyen, B.; Dixon, W.; Assadi, A.; Greer, R.; Schwartz, S.; Brudno, M.; Mariakakis, A.; Goodwin, A.

2025-04-01 health informatics
10.1101/2025.03.31.25324979 medRxiv
Show abstract

Pulse arrival time (PAT) is known to be correlated with blood pressure. Although PAT can be measured using electrocardiography (ECG), photoplethysmography (PPG), and other signals commonly available in clinical settings, recent literature has noted that devices recording these waveforms are often subject to many hardware-specific factors related to digital filtering, clock synchronization, temporal resolution, and latency. These factors can introduce relative timing errors between the ECG and PPG signals, resulting in a situation where traditional approaches for PAT measurement will not work as intended. In this work, we propose a methodology that accounts for these confounding factors and generates precise measurements of PAT using standard bedside monitoring equipment. This technique involves using heart rate variability to match heartbeats across waveforms and experimentally profiling the timing systems of bedside medical devices to correct various timing-related artifacts. To improve the precision of the resulting PAT measurements, we model temporal uncertainties stemming from the finite temporal resolution of the waveform samples. We apply this approach to a dataset with roughly 1.6 million hours of continuous ECG and PPG data from over 10,000 unique patients at a pediatric intensive care unit (ICU). After demonstrating that the observed timing artifacts are consistent across the entire dataset, we show that accounting for them results in more reasonable distributions of PAT measurements across age groups. It is our hope that this work will spur discussion around the standardization of PAT measurement using routinely collected signals in a clinical environment.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.3%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.0%
3
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
5
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.8%
8
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
9
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
10
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
Neurophotonics
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
13
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
14
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
15
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
18
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
20
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
22
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%