Literature DB >> 34191253

Evaluation of respiratory rate monitoring using a microwave Doppler sensor mounted on the ceiling of an intensive care unit: a prospective observational study.

Hiroyuki Tanaka1, Masashi Yokose2, Shunsuke Takaki1, Takahiro Mihara1,3, Yusuke Saigusa4, Takahisa Goto1.   

Abstract

Continuous monitoring of the respiratory rate is crucial in an acute care setting. Contact respiratory monitoring modalities such as capnography and thoracic impedance pneumography are prone to artifacts, causing false alarms. Moreover, their cables can restrict patient behavior or interrupt patient care. A microwave Doppler sensor is a novel non-contact continuous respiratory rate monitor. We compared respiratory rate measurements performed with a microwave Doppler sensor mounted on the ceiling of an intensive care unit with those obtained by conventional methods in conscious and spontaneously breathing patients. Participants' respiratory rate was simultaneously measured by visual counting of chest wall movements for 60 s; a microwave Doppler sensor; capnography, using an oxygen mask; and thoracic impedance pneumography, using electrocardiogram electrodes. Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measures was performed to calculate bias and 95% limits of agreement between the respiratory rate measured by visual counting (reference) and that measured by each of the other methods. Among 52 participants, there were 336 (microwave Doppler sensor), 275 (capnography), and 336 (thoracic impedance pneumography) paired respiratory rate data points. Bias (95% limits of agreement) estimates were as follows: microwave Doppler sensor, 0.3 (- 6.1 to 6.8) breaths per minute (bpm); capnography, - 1.3 (- 8.6 to 6.0) bpm; and thoracic impedance pneumography, 0.1 (- 4.4 to 4.7) bpm. Compared to visual counting, the microwave Doppler sensor showed small bias; however, the limits of agreement were similar to those observed in other conventional methods. Our monitor and the conventional ones are not interchangeable with visual counting.Trial registration number: UMIN000032021, March/30/2018.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Intensive care units; Non-contact monitoring; Patient monitoring; Respiratory rate

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34191253     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00733-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  28 in total

1.  Thoracic impedance monitoring of respiratory rate during sedation--is it safe?

Authors:  J N Wilkinson; V U Thanawala
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 6.955

2.  An Index Combining Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation to Predict Outcome of Nasal High-Flow Therapy.

Authors:  Oriol Roca; Berta Caralt; Jonathan Messika; Manuel Samper; Benjamin Sztrymf; Gonzalo Hernández; Marina García-de-Acilu; Jean-Pierre Frat; Joan R Masclans; Jean-Damien Ricard
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Predicting success of high-flow nasal cannula in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: The utility of the ROX index.

Authors:  Oriol Roca; Jonathan Messika; Berta Caralt; Marina García-de-Acilu; Benjamin Sztrymf; Jean-Damien Ricard; Joan R Masclans
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.425

4.  [Effect of monomycin and neomycin on secretion and chemical composition of gastric juice in dogs at different conditions of central nervous system].

Authors:  E A Govorovich; L V Elagina
Journal:  Antibiotiki       Date:  1966-07

5.  Clinical antecedents to in-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest.

Authors:  R M Schein; N Hazday; M Pena; B H Ruben; C L Sprung
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Thoracic impedance used for measuring chest wall movement in postoperative patients.

Authors:  G B Drummond; A F Nimmo; R A Elton
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 9.166

7.  Association between clinically abnormal observations and subsequent in-hospital mortality: a prospective study.

Authors:  Michael Buist; Stephen Bernard; Tuan V Nguyen; Gaye Moore; Jeremy Anderson
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.262

8.  Patterns of unexpected in-hospital deaths: a root cause analysis.

Authors:  Lawrence A Lynn; J Paul Curry
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2011-02-11

9.  Improvements in Patient Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit: Survey Study.

Authors:  Akira-Sebastian Poncette; Lina Mosch; Claudia Spies; Malte Schmieding; Fridtjof Schiefenhövel; Henning Krampe; Felix Balzer
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  The impact of introducing the early warning scoring system and protocol on clinical outcomes in tertiary referral university hospital.

Authors:  Yuda Sutherasan; Pongdhep Theerawit; Alongkot Suporn; Arkom Nongnuch; Pariya Phanachet; Chomsri Kositchaiwat
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 2.423

View more
  1 in total

1.  One small wearable, one giant leap for patient safety?

Authors:  Frederic Michard; Robert H Thiele; Morgan Le Guen
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 1.977

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.