Purpose Communication of caregivers and relatives to patients is a major difficulty in intensive care units (ICU). Patient’s comprehension capabilities are variable over time and traditional comprehension tests cannot be implemented. Our purpose was to evaluate an oral comprehension test adapted for its automatic implementation using eye-tracking technology among ICU patients. Methods Prospective bi-centric cohort study was conducted on 60 healthy volunteers and 53 ICU patients. Subjects underwent an oral comprehension test using an eye-tracking device: Their results and characteristics were collected. The total duration of the test was 2 and a half minutes. Results While performing the test, 48 patients (92%) received invasive ventilation. Among healthy volunteers, the median rate of right answers was very high (93% [interquartile range 87, 100]), whereas it was lower (33% [20, 67]) for patients. For both groups, a significantly lower right answers rate was observed with advancing age (67% [27, 80] vs. 27% [20, 38] among patients and 93% [93, 100] vs. 87% [73, 93] among healthy volunteers, below and above 60 years of age, respectively) and in case of lack of a bachelor’s degree (60% [38, 87] vs. 27% [20, 57] among patients and 93% [93, 100] vs. 87% [73, 93] among healthy volunteers). For patients, the higher the severity of disease was, the lower the rate of correct answers was. Conclusion The eye-tracking-adapted comprehension test is easy and fast to use among ICU patients, and results seem coherent with various potential levels of comprehension as hypothesized in this study.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: When the upper arm is inaccessible for measurements of arterial pressure (AP), the best alternative site is unknown. We performed a between-site comparison of the agreement between invasive and noninvasive readings of AP taken at the lower leg, the finger, and the upper arm. The risk associated with measurement errors and the trending ability were also assessed. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Three ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients having an arterial catheter and an arm circumference less than 42 cm. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three triplicates of AP measurements were collected via an arterial catheter (reference AP), a finger cuff system (ClearSight; Edward Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), and an oscillometric cuff (at the lower leg then the upper arm). Trending ability was assessed through an additional set of measurements after a cardiovascular intervention. The default bed backrest angle was respected. Failure to measure and display AP occurred in 19 patients (13%) at the finger, never at other sites. In 130 patients analyzed, the agreement between noninvasive and invasive readings was worse at the lower leg than that observed at the upper arm or the finger (for mean AP, bias ± sd of 6.0 ± 15.8 vs 3.6 ± 7.1 and 0.1 ± 7.4 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05), yielding a higher frequency of error-associated clinical risk (no risk for 64% vs 84% and 86% of measurements, respectively, p < 0.0001). According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 81060-2:2018 standard, mean AP measurements were reliable at the upper arm and the finger, not the lower leg. In 33 patients reassessed after a cardiovascular intervention, both the concordance rate for change in mean AP and the ability to detect a therapy-induced significant change were good and similar at the three sites. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with lower leg measurements of AP, finger measurements were, when possible, a preferable alternative to upper arm ones.