Background New consumer health devices are being developed to easily monitor multiple physiological parameters on a regular basis. Many of these vital sign measurement devices have yet to be formally studied in a clinical setting but have already spread widely throughout the consumer market. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements of 2 novel all-in-one monitoring devices, the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor and the Everlast smartwatch. Methods We enrolled 127 patients (>18 years) from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Preadmission Testing Center. SBP and HR were measured by both investigational devices. In addition, the Everlast watch was utilized to measure DBP, and the BodiMetrics Performance Monitor was utilized to measure SpO2. After 5 min of quiet sitting, four hospital-grade standard and three investigational vital sign measurements were taken, with 60 seconds in between each measurement. The reference vital sign measurements were calculated by determining the average of the two standard measurements that bounded each investigational measurement. Using this method, we determined three comparison pairs for each investigational device in each subject. After excluding data from 42 individuals because of excessive variation in sequential standard measurements per prespecified dropping rules, data from 85 subjects were used for final analysis. Results Of 85 participants, 36 (42%) were women, and the mean age was 53 (SD 21) years. The accuracy guidelines were only met for the HR measurements in both devices. SBP measurements deviated 16.9 (SD 13.5) mm Hg and 5.3 (SD 4.7) mm Hg from the reference values for the Everlast and BodiMetrics devices, respectively. The mean absolute difference in DBP measurements for the Everlast smartwatch was 8.3 (SD 6.1) mm Hg. The mean absolute difference between BodiMetrics and reference SpO2 measurements was 3.02%. Conclusions Both devices we investigated met accuracy guidelines for HR measurements, but they failed to meet the predefined accuracy guidelines for other vital sign measurements. Continued sale of consumer physiological monitors without prior validation and approval procedures is a public health concern.

Part of the Anesthesiology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas Jefferson University's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Phase 1 by an authorized administrator of the Jefferson Digital Commons.

Electronic cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) is a newly emerging diagnosis in the United States, yet the incidence has surged greatly in the past year. With the trend of using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and vaping rising at an alarming rate among teenagers, many are resorting to friends, illicit drug dealers, and other informal sources to obtain their e-cigarettes, which is greatly contributing to the national outbreak of EVALI. The incidence of adolescents presenting with the constellation of respiratory, gastrointestinal, and constitutional symptoms characteristic of EVALI has been widely reported within the nation. We present one such case of an adolescent boy with a 2-year history of daily vaping who presented with nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and fever but lacked the respiratory symptoms that have been reported in the majority of EVALI cases reported thus far. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed an incidental finding of lung pathology characteristic of EVALI, prompting further workup and diagnosis of EVALI. In this case, it is demonstrated that the presentation of EVALI can be variable and is still poorly defined. The rising morbidity and mortality from EVALI reveal the importance of considering EVALI in all patients with a history of vaping or e-cigarette use, regardless of the presence or absence of respiratory symptoms.

No abstract

No abstract