Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 18, Issue 10, pp 1795–1803 | Cite as

Validation of an Acoustic Gastrointestinal Surveillance Biosensor for Postoperative Ileus

  • Brennan M. R. Spiegel
  • Marc Kaneshiro
  • Marcia M. Russell
  • Anne Lin
  • Anish Patel
  • Vartan C. Tashjian
  • Vincent Zegarski
  • Digvijay Singh
  • Samuel E. Cohen
  • Mark W. Reid
  • Cynthia B. Whitman
  • Jennifer Talley
  • Bibiana M. Martinez
  • William Kaiser
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Postoperative ileus (POI) can worsen outcomes, increase cost, and prolong hospitalization. An objective marker could help identify POI patients who should not be prematurely fed. We developed a disposable, non-invasive acoustic gastro-intestinal surveillance (AGIS) biosensor. We tested whether AGIS can distinguish healthy controls from patients recovering from abdominal surgery.

Study Design

AGIS is a disposable plastic device embedded with a microphone that adheres to the abdominal wall and connects to a computer that measures acoustic event rates. We compared intestinal rates of healthy subjects using AGIS for 60 min after a standardized meal to recordings of two postoperative groups: (1) patients tolerating standardized feeding and (2) POI patients. We compared intestinal rates among groups using ANOVA and t tests.

Results

There were 8 healthy controls, 7 patients tolerating feeding, and 25 with POI; mean intestinal rates were 0.14, 0.03, and 0.016 events per second, respectively (ANOVA p < 0.001). AGIS separated patients from controls with 100 % sensitivity and 97 % specificity. Among patients, rates were higher in fed versus POI subjects (p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Non-invasive, abdominal acoustic monitoring distinguishes POI from non-POI subjects. Future research will test whether AGIS can identify patients at risk for development of POI and assist with postoperative feeding decisions.

Keywords

Postoperative Ileus Biosensor Health technology 

References

  1. 1.
    Doorly MG, Senagore AJ. Pathogenesis and clinical and economic consequences of postoperative ileus. Surg Clin North Am 2012;92:259–72, viii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lubawski J, Saclarides T. Postoperative ileus: strategies for reduction. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2008;4:913–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kehlet H, Holte K. Review of postoperative ileus. Am J Surg 2001;182:3S-10S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asgeirsson T. Postoperative ileus: it costs more than you expect. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:228–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prasad M, Matthews JB. Deflating postoperative ileus. Gastroenterology 1999;117:489–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by mouth” after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ 2001;323:773–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersen HK, Lewis SJ, Thomas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24h of colorectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:CD004080.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis SJ, Andersen HK, Thomas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24h of intestinal surgery versus later commencement of feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:569–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warren J, Bhalla V, Cresci G. Postoperative diet advancement: surgical dogma vs evidence-based medicine. Nutr Clin Pract 2011;26:115–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolff BG, Viscusi ER, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Fort JG, Du W, Techner L, Wallin B. Patterns of gastrointestinal recovery after bowel resection and total abdominal hysterectomy: pooled results from the placebo arms of alvimopan phase III North American clinical trials. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:43–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iyer S, Saunders WB, Stemkowski S. Economic burden of postoperative ileus associated with colectomy in the United States. J Manag Care Pharm 2009;15:485–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asgeirsson T, El-Badawi KI, Mahmood A, Barletta J, Luchtefeld M, Senagore AJ. Postoperative ileus: it costs more than you expect. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:228–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barletta JF, Senagore AJ. Reducing the Burden of Postoperative ileus: Evaluating and Implementing an Evidence-based Strategy. World J Surg 2014.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muller S, Zalunardo MP, Hubner M, Clavien PA, Demartines N. A fast-track program reduces complications and length of hospital stay after open colonic surgery. Gastroenterology 2009;136:842–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gu Y, Lim HJ, Moser MA. How useful are bowel sounds in assessing the abdomen? Dig Surg 2010;27:422–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Massey RL. Return of bowel sounds indicating an end of postoperative ileus: is it time to cease this long-standing nursing tradition? Medsurg Nurs 2012;21:146–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomomasa T, Morikawa A, Sandler RH, Mansy HA, Koneko H, Masahiko T, Hyman PE, Itoh Z. Gastrointestinal sounds and migrating motor complex in fasted humans. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:374–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dobkin BH, Xu X, Batalin M, Thomas S, Kaiser W. Reliability and validity of bilateral ankle accelerometer algorithms for activity recognition and walking speed after stroke. Stroke 2011;42:2246–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Au LK, Batalin MA, Stathopoulos T, Bui AA, Kaiser WJ. Episodic sampling: towards energy-efficient patient monitoring with wearable sensors. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;2009:6901–5.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu JY, Chang HI, Chien C, Kaiser WJ, Pottie GJ. Context-driven, Prescription based Personal Activity Classification: Methodology, Architecture and End-to-End Implementation. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shibata Y, Toyoda S, Nimura Y, Miyati M. Patterns of intestinal motility recovery during the early stage following abdominal surgery: clinical and manometric study. World J Surg 1997;21:806–9; discussion 809–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brennan M. R. Spiegel
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Marc Kaneshiro
    • 2
    • 5
  • Marcia M. Russell
    • 1
    • 4
  • Anne Lin
    • 4
  • Anish Patel
    • 2
    • 6
  • Vartan C. Tashjian
    • 5
  • Vincent Zegarski
    • 3
  • Digvijay Singh
    • 3
  • Samuel E. Cohen
    • 2
    • 6
  • Mark W. Reid
    • 2
    • 8
  • Cynthia B. Whitman
    • 8
  • Jennifer Talley
    • 2
    • 8
  • Bibiana M. Martinez
    • 8
  • William Kaiser
    • 3
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of MedicineVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.UCLA Wireless Health InstituteHenry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied ScienceLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive DiseasesDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Department of Health Policy and ManagementUCLA Fielding School of Public HealthLos AngelesUSA
  8. 8.UCLA/VA Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CORE)Los AngelesUSA
  9. 9.Division of GastroenterologyWest Los Angeles VA Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  10. 10.Electrical Engineering DepartmentUniversity of California, Los AnglesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations