Search

Indoor positioning systems are becoming increasing popular recently. While most existing indoor positioning studies focus on improving accuracy, less attention is paid to the latency problem. The traditional fusion algorithm uses the received signal strength‐based (RSS‐Based) positioning result to correct the current position of the system. However, it fails to keep up with the actual moving speed of the user during the navigation. The location retrospective adjustment (LRA) method proposed in this paper uses the RSS‐Based positioning result to correct the past position of the system, which can effectively eliminate positioning delay and improve the real‐time response of navigation. We tested in a 70 m linear promenade and found that the addition of LRA results in a reduction of the positioning error around −0.3 to +0.4 m, which improves 85%. Additionally, the LRA method alleviates the requirements for the immediate response of RSS positioning, and the RSS positioning algorithm can be moved to the cloud. It reduces the download resources and computing load on the mobile phone. The complete indoor navigation application is presented in HTML5 which allows users to navigate without having to download the APP in advance, and it takes only 4–9 s for users to launch the application for the first time. We tested the application in a hospital with a total floor area of 79,000 m2 in 7 buildings. The system achieves an average positioning accuracy of 0.65 m at a long navigation distance of 220 m. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to consider the latency issue in indoor navigation. The proposed LRA approach improves real‐time navigation performance, lightens the computation load on the mobile phone, and allows cloud‐based positioning systems to provide stable and accurate navigation even under poor network quality in crowded areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock.Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 µg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 µg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population.Results: Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001).Conclusions: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events.Trial Registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]