Prospective clinical validation of the Empatica EmbracePlus wristband as a reflective pulse oximeter

IntroductionRespiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, and COVID-19 may cause a decrease in arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2). The continuous monitoring of oxygen levels may be beneficial for the early detection of hypoxemia and timely intervention. Wearable non-invasive pulse oximetry devices measuring peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) have been garnering increasing popularity. However, there is still a strong need for extended and robust clinical validation of such devices, especially to address topical concerns about disparities in performances across racial groups. This prospective clinical validation aimed to assess the accuracy of the reflective pulse oximeter function of the EmbracePlus wristband during a controlled hypoxia study in accordance with the ISO 80601-2-61:2017 standard and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance.MethodsHealthy adult participants were recruited in a controlled desaturation protocol to reproduce mild, moderate, and severe hypoxic conditions with SaO2 ranging from 100% to 70% (ClinicalTrials.gov registration #NCT04964609). The SpO2 level was estimated with an EmbracePlus device placed on the participant's wrist and the reference SaO2 was obtained from blood samples analyzed with a multiwavelength co-oximeter.ResultsThe controlled hypoxia study yielded 373 conclusive measurements on 15 subjects, including 30% of participants with dark skin pigmentation (V–VI on the Fitzpatrick scale). The accuracy root mean square (Arms) error was found to be 2.4%, within the 3.5% limit recommended by the FDA. A strong positive correlation between the wristband SpO2 and the reference SaO2 was observed (r = 0.96, P < 0.001), and a good concordance was found with Bland–Altman analysis (bias, 0.05%; standard deviation, 1.66; lower limit, −4.7%; and upper limit, 4.8%). Moreover, acceptable accuracy was observed when stratifying data points by skin pigmentation (Arms 2.2% in Fitzpatrick V–VI, 2.5% in Fitzpatrick I-IV), and sex (Arms 1.9% in females, and 2.9% in males).DiscussionThis study demonstrates that the EmbracePlus wristband could be used to assess SpO2 with clinically acceptable accuracy under no-motion and high perfusion conditions for individuals of different ethnicities across the claimed range. This study paves the way for further accuracy evaluations on unhealthy subjects and during prolonged use in ambulatory settings

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID -19: coreporting of common outcomes from PAN-COVID and AAP-SONPM registries

Objective Few large cohort studies have reported data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection in pregnancy. We report the outcome of infected pregnancies from a collaboration formed early during the pandemic between the investigators of two registries, the UK and Global Pregnancy and Neonatal outcomes in COVID‐19 (PAN‐COVID) study and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section on Neonatal–Perinatal Medicine (SONPM) National Perinatal COVID‐19 Registry. Methods This was an analysis of data from the PAN‐COVID registry (1 January to 25 July 2020), which includes pregnancies with suspected or confirmed maternal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at any stage in pregnancy, and the AAP‐SONPM National Perinatal COVID‐19 registry (4 April to 8 August 2020), which includes pregnancies with positive maternal testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 from 14 days before delivery to 3 days after delivery. The registries collected data on maternal, fetal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. The PAN‐COVID results are presented overall for pregnancies with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and separately in those with confirmed infection. Results We report on 4005 pregnant women with suspected or confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (1606 from PAN‐COVID and 2399 from AAP‐SONPM). For obstetric outcomes, in PAN‐COVID overall and in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and AAP‐SONPM, respectively, maternal death occurred in 0.5%, 0.5% and 0.2% of cases, early neonatal death in 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.3% of cases and stillbirth in 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.4% of cases. Delivery was preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) in 12.0% of all women in PAN‐COVID, in 16.1% of those women with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 15.7% of women in AAP‐SONPM. Extreme preterm delivery (< 27 weeks' gestation) occurred in 0.5% of cases in PAN‐COVID and 0.3% in AAP‐SONPM. Neonatal SARS‐CoV‐2 infection was reported in 0.9% of all deliveries in PAN‐COVID overall, in 2.0% in those with confirmed infection in PAN‐COVID and in 1.8% in AAP‐SONPM; the proportions of neonates tested were 9.5%, 20.7% and 87.2%, respectively. The rates of a small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) neonate were 8.2% in PAN‐COVID overall, 9.7% in those with confirmed infection and 9.6% in AAP‐SONPM. Mean gestational‐age‐adjusted birth‐weight Z‐scores were −0.03 in PAN‐COVID and −0.18 in AAP‐SONPM. Conclusions The findings from the UK and USA registries of pregnancies with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were remarkably concordant. Preterm delivery affected a higher proportion of women than expected based on historical and contemporaneous national data. The proportions of pregnancies affected by stillbirth, a SGA infant or early neonatal death were comparable to those in historical and contemporaneous UK and USA data. Although maternal death was uncommon, the rate was higher than expected based on UK and USA population data, which is likely explained by underascertainment of women affected by milder or asymptomatic infection in pregnancy in the PAN‐COVID study, although not in the AAP‐SONPM study. The data presented support strong guidance for enhanced precautions to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in pregnancy, particularly in the context of increased risks of preterm delivery and maternal mortality, and for priority vaccination of pregnant women and women planning pregnancy. Copyright © 2021 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd