Measurement of Vital Signs Using Lifelight Remote Photoplethysmography: Results of the VISION-D and VISION-V
Emily Heiden1, Tom Jones1, Annika Brogaard Maczka2
1Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Background:
The detection of early changes in vital signs (VSs) enables timely intervention; however, the measurement of VSs requires hands-on technical expertise and is often time-consuming. The contactless measurement of VSs is beneficial to prevent infection, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lifelight is a novel software being developed to measure VSs by remote photoplethysmography based on video captures of the face via the integral camera on mobile phones and tablets. We report two early studies in the development of Lifelight.
Objective:
The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Development (VISION-D) study (NCT04763746) was to measure respiratory rate (RR), pulse rate (PR), and blood pressure (BP) simultaneously by using the current standard of care manual methods and the Lifelight software to iteratively refine the software algorithms. The objective of the Vital Sign Comparison Between Lifelight and Standard of Care: Validation (VISION-V) study (NCT03998098) was to validate the use of Lifelight software to accurately measure VSs.
Methods:
BP, PR, and RR were measured simultaneously using Lifelight, a sphygmomanometer (BP and PR), and the manual counting of RR. Accuracy performance targets for each VS were defined from a systematic literature review of the performance of state-of-the-art VSs technologies.
Results:
The VISION-D data set (17,233 measurements from 8585 participants) met the accuracy targets for RR (mean error 0.3, SD 3.6 vs target mean error 2.3, SD 5.0; n=7462), PR (mean error 0.3, SD 4.0 vs mean error 2.2, SD 9.2; n=10,214), and diastolic BP (mean error -0.4, SD 8.5 vs mean error 5.5, SD 8.9; n=8951); for systolic BP, the mean error target was met but not the SD (mean error 3.5, SD 16.8 vs mean error 6.7, SD 15.3; n=9233). Fitzpatrick skin type did not affect accuracy. The VISION-V data set (679 measurements from 127 participants) met all the standards: mean error -0.1, SD 3.4 for RR; mean error 1.4, SD 3.8 for PR; mean error 2.8, SD 14.5 for systolic BP; and mean error -0.3, SD 7.0 for diastolic BP.
Conclusions:
At this early stage in development, Lifelight demonstrates sufficient accuracy in the measurement of VSs to support certification for a Level 1 Conformité Européenne mark. As the use of Lifelight does not require specific training or equipment, the software is potentially useful for the contactless measurement of VSs by nonclinical staff in residential and home care settings. Work is continuing to enhance data collection and processing to achieve the robustness and accuracy required for routine clinical use.
International Registered Report Identifier (Irrid):
RR2-10.2196/14326.
More Related Videos
06:50Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy: Getting the Capillary Refill Test Under One's Thumb
Published on: December 2, 2017
04:44Author Spotlight: Enhancing Vascular Function and Physical Capacity in Cardiovascular Disease Through Novel Interventions and NIRS Technology
Published on: March 22, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Guidelines For Measuring Vital Signs
Before taking a patient's vital signs, a nurse would consider and assess the patient's comfort level and ensure appropriate equipment is available.
Pulse Oximetry
Purpose
Average SpO2 values are greater than 95%. If the readings fall below 90%, it indicates that...
Introduction to Vital Signs
Vital signs help healthcare professionals assess an individual's well-being and detect any functional changes...
