TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing Hemorrhage in Human Physiology Simulation Tools
T2 - How They Compare with Expected Human Physiology and Each Other
AU - Barnes, John Jacob
AU - Kiberenge, Kenneth
AU - Sweet, Robert
AU - Keller, Jon
AU - Konia, Mojca R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
PY - 2020/10/1
Y1 - 2020/10/1
N2 - Introduction Several different whole-body physiology simulation tools (PST) using modeling techniques are now available with potential use for healthcare simulation, but these novel technologies lack objective analysis from an independent organization. Methods We identified BioGears, HumMod, and Muse as 3 PSTs that met our requirements for testing. We ran mild, moderate, and severe hemorrhage scenarios on each PST and collected outputs for comparison with each other and published human physiology data. Results All PSTs tested followed the expected tachycardic and hypotensive response to hemorrhage for all levels of severity with variable qualitative patterns. Complete data for analysis were not available in all PSTs for urine output, stroke volume, blood volume, hemoglobin, and serum epinephrine concentration, but the partial findings are discussed in detail. We determined the predicted time to reach hemorrhage shock based on the hemorrhage guidelines and compared this with time to cardiovascular collapse from each PST. Overall, the differences from known human physiology were much larger than expected before testing and trends show HumMod with the smallest difference for severe (-6.25%) and moderate (-1.42%) and Muse with the smallest difference for mild hemorrhage (27.9%). BioGears demonstrated the largest differences in all classifications of severity. Conclusions Our analysis of currently available whole-body PSTs provides insight into the novel, evolving field. We hope our efforts shed light to a wider audience to the exciting developments and uses of mathematical modeling for whole-body simulation and the potential for integration into healthcare simulation for medical education.
AB - Introduction Several different whole-body physiology simulation tools (PST) using modeling techniques are now available with potential use for healthcare simulation, but these novel technologies lack objective analysis from an independent organization. Methods We identified BioGears, HumMod, and Muse as 3 PSTs that met our requirements for testing. We ran mild, moderate, and severe hemorrhage scenarios on each PST and collected outputs for comparison with each other and published human physiology data. Results All PSTs tested followed the expected tachycardic and hypotensive response to hemorrhage for all levels of severity with variable qualitative patterns. Complete data for analysis were not available in all PSTs for urine output, stroke volume, blood volume, hemoglobin, and serum epinephrine concentration, but the partial findings are discussed in detail. We determined the predicted time to reach hemorrhage shock based on the hemorrhage guidelines and compared this with time to cardiovascular collapse from each PST. Overall, the differences from known human physiology were much larger than expected before testing and trends show HumMod with the smallest difference for severe (-6.25%) and moderate (-1.42%) and Muse with the smallest difference for mild hemorrhage (27.9%). BioGears demonstrated the largest differences in all classifications of severity. Conclusions Our analysis of currently available whole-body PSTs provides insight into the novel, evolving field. We hope our efforts shed light to a wider audience to the exciting developments and uses of mathematical modeling for whole-body simulation and the potential for integration into healthcare simulation for medical education.
KW - Healthcare simulation
KW - hemorrhage
KW - physiology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092680108&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092680108&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000427
DO - 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000427
M3 - Article
C2 - 32218085
AN - SCOPUS:85092680108
SN - 1559-2332
VL - 15
SP - 310
EP - 317
JO - Simulation in Healthcare
JF - Simulation in Healthcare
IS - 5
ER -