Towards a swarm of agile micro quadrotors
Summary (1 min read)
Introduction
- Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCB) are widely preferred agents in the management of hypertension either alone or in combination with other drugs due to their high efficacy, metabolic neutrality and low side effect profile.
- The drug is either withdrawn or the dose is reduced whenever disturbing pedal edema develops and this can result in impaired blood pressure control.
- Not all the members of this antihypertensive class share the same adverse event risk profile.
- In previous studies, newer generation, long-acting dihydropyridine CCBs are shown to have lower rates of pedal edema when compared to older ones [2, 3].
- Only a few studies addressed this issue [4].
Material and methods
- The study is a prospective, open-label, single-center study.
- Exclusion criteria were secondary hypertension, chronic renal failure (serum creatinine higher than 2mg/dL), systolic heart failure, moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension and known venous insufficiency.
- In patients who were on combination therapy, the anti-hypertensive drugs other than CCBs were continued.
- Dose was titrated according to blood pressure measurements for each visit.
- The average of three consecutive measurements were recorded.
Statistical analysis
- Was performed using SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois).
- Data were presented as mean±SD for continuous variables if they are distributed normally and differences between groups were assessed by unpaired samples T-test.
- Categorical variables were presented as percentages and were compared using Fisher exact test or Chi-square test.
- A p value <0.05 was accepted as significant.
Results
- Fifty-eight hypertensive patients (34 female, 24 male, mean age: 65.3±10.5) in whom pedal edema developed during treatment with a dihydropyridine CCB were enrolled in the study.
- Demographic and clinical characteristics of subjects are given in Table 1.
- In 7 (24.1%) patients in felodipine group and in 5 (17.2%) patients in lacidipine group the study drug was withdrawn due to pedal edema.
- Nevertheless it should be noted that the comparison of these two drugs with respect to pedal edema rates is beyond the scope of this study.
Discussion
- The authors study revealed that pedal edema is a frequent side effect of dihydropyridine CCB therapy and a different group of dihydropyridine CCB can be used as an alternative therapy for hypertension when pedal edema develops.
- Moreover pedal edema may cause misdiagnosis of heart failure or venous insufficiency, leading to unnecessary diagnostic studies.
- A study other than ours, tried to answer this question.
- The authors study has important clinical implications that patients with hypertension usually need combination therapy in order to reach blood pressure targets [9] and in some patients dihydropyridine CCBs are the only choise for combination.
- Physicians tend to give up dihydropyridine CCBs when they are faced by this unpleasant side effect.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
566 citations
419 citations
333 citations
Cites background from "Towards a swarm of agile micro quad..."
...In indoor GPS-denied environments, optical motion capture systems enable millimeter-level position tracking utilizing multiple infrared cameras [216], [217]....
[...]
...Centralized topologies with one ground station and multiple agents are used for most cases [209], [216], [217]....
[...]
304 citations
Cites methods from "Towards a swarm of agile micro quad..."
...describe the design, planning, and control of a custom micro quadcopter with experiments involving up to 20 vehicles [1]....
[...]
299 citations
Cites methods from "Towards a swarm of agile micro quad..."
...employing quadrotor UAVs as robotics platforms: planning and control for aggressive flight maneuvers [6], collective control of multiple small- and micro-quadrotors [7], [8], and vision-based state estimation for autonomous flight [9] are just a few examples....
[...]
References
2,146 citations
1,875 citations
1,464 citations
1,326 citations
1,175 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (16)
Q2. How much power does the Hummingbird quadrotor consume?
The Hummingbird quadrotor from Ascending Technologies (500 grams gross weight, approximately 0.5 m diameter, and 5000 rpm nominal rotor speed at hover) without additional sensors consumes about 75 W.
Q3. How many tcs do vehicles spend in one loop of the trajectory?
In order to guaruntee collision-free trajectories at the intersection, vehicles spend 15 32 tc in one loop of the trajectory and 17 32 tc in the other.
Q4. How does the motor torque increase with length?
While motor torque increases with length, the operating speed for the rotors is determined by matching the torque-speed characteristics of the motor to the drag versus speed characteristics of the propellors.
Q5. What is the main purpose of the radio modules?
The radio modules can also simultaneously receive high bandwidth feedback from the vehicles, making use of the two independent transceivers.
Q6. What is the way to solve the problem of team trajectories?
If the team trajectory does not intersect or come within an unsafe distance of itself then vehicles simply need to follow each other at a safe time separation.
Q7. What is the simplest way to determine the u1 input?
Given a trajectory, σ(t) : [0, tf ] → R3 × SO(2), the controller derives the input u1 based on position and velocity errors:u1 = (−Kpep −Kvev +mga3) · b3 (4) where ep = r − rT and ev = ṙ − ṙT .
Q8. What is the way to generate a trajectory?
A trajectory that satisfies these timing constraints and has some specified velocity at the intersection point (with zero acceleration and jerk) is generated using the optimizationbased method for a single vehicle described in [17].
Q9. How many vehicles can follow team trajectories that intersect themselves?
Large numbers of vehicles can follow team trajectories that intersect themselves if the time separations, ∆tq , are chosen so that no two vehicles are at any of the intersection points at the same time.
Q10. How can the authors reduce the complexity of the trajectory generation problem?
Another way to reduce the complexity of the trajectory generation problem is to require all vehicles to follow the sameteam trajectory but be separated by some time increment.
Q11. What is the way to solve a swarm of micro quadrotors?
While their quadrotors rely on an external localization system for position estimation and therefore cannot be truly decentralized at this stage, these results represent the first step toward the development of a swarm of micro quadrotors.
Q12. what is the condition that the quadrotor does not collide with an obstacle?
The condition that quadrotor q does not collide with an obstacle o at time tk can be enforced with binary variables, bqofk, asnof · rTq(tk) ≤ sof +Mbqofk ∀f = 1, ..., nf (o) (10) bqofk = 0 or 1 ∀f = 1, ..., nf (o)nf (o)∑ f=1 bqofk ≤ nf (o)−
Q13. What is the way to partition the environment?
In many cases the environment can be partitioned into nr convex sub-regions where each sub-region contains the same number of quadrotor start and goal positions.
Q14. How many vehicles are used to generate trajectories?
in both experiments the space is divided into two regions and separate MIQPs with 8 vehicles each are used to generate trajectories for vehicles on the left and right sides of the formation.
Q15. Why do the authors gain tractability at the expense of optimality?
The authors are gaining tractability at the expense of optimality since the true optimal solution might actually require quadrotors to cross region boundaries while this relaxed version does not.
Q16. What is the position error for quadrotor q at time t?
The position error for quadrotor q at time t can be written asepq(t) = ef (t) + elq(t) (6) where ef (t) is the formation error describing the error of position of the group from the prescribed trajectory, and elq(t) is the local error of quadrotor q within the formation of the group.