4.2 Article

Acoustic respiration rate and pulse oximetry-derived respiration rate: a clinical comparison study

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10877-018-0222-4

关键词

Respiration rate; Pulse oximetry-derived respiratory rate (RRoxi) acoustic respiration rate (RRa); Capnography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiration rate (RR) is a critical vital sign that provides early detection of respiratory compromise. The acoustic technique of measuring continuous respiration rate (RRa) interprets the large airway sound envelope to calculate respiratory rate while pulse oximetry-derived respiratory rate (RRoxi) interprets modulations of the photoplethsymograph in response to hemodynamic changes during the respiratory cycle. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of these technologies to each other and to a capnography-based reference device. Subjects were asked to decrease their RR from 14 to 4 breaths per minute (BPM) and then increase RR from 14 to 24 BPM. The effects of physiological noise, ambient noise, and head movement and shallow breathing on device performance were also evaluated. The test devices were: (1) RRa, Radical-7 (Masimo Corporation), (2) RRoxi, Nellcor (TM) Bedside Respiratory Patient Monitoring System (Medtronic), and (3) reference device, Capnostream20p (TM) (Medtronic). All devices were configured with their default settings. Twenty-nine healthy adult subjects were included in the study. During abrupt changes in breathing, overall RRoxi was accurate for longer periods of time than RRa; specifically, RRoxi was more accurate during low and normal RR, but not during high RR. RRoxi also displayed a value for significantly longer time periods than RRa when the subjects produced physiological sounds and moved their heads, but not during shallow breathing or ambient noise. RRoxi may be more accurate than RRa during development of bradypnea. Also, RRoxi may display a more reliable RR value during routine patient activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据