OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP) waveforms to those obtained with whole body plethysmograph (BP) as this device gives a plethysmographic signal and a pneumotachograph (PNT). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Physiologic laboratory in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven subjects from the laboratory staff. INTERVENTIONS: This study was achieved during four consecutive periods in subjects breathing spontaneously and through different added resistive loads. Using the least square method calibration, two RIP waveforms, VRIP.BP(t) and VRIP.PNT(t), were simultaneously calculated with coefficients obtained from BP and from PNT volume waveforms, respectively VBP(t) and VPNT(t). For each recording, to compare volume waveforms, we calculated their differences in term of distances, DRIP-BP and DRIP-PNT, between the normalized RIP volume signal (respectively, VRIP.BP[t] and VRIP.PNT[t]) and its normalized reference (respectively, VBP[t] and VPNT[t]). We also calculated the distance DPNT-BP between the two normalized references VBP(t) and VPNT(t). RESULTS: No significant effect of load or time on the distance occurred. Including all the recordings, the mean distance DRIP-BP (3.4+/-1.1%) appears significantly lower than both the mean distance DRIP-PNT (4.5+/-1.3%; p<0.04) and the mean distance DPNT-BP (4.6+/-0.9%; p<0.008). For each period or load level, DRIP-BP appears to be lower than DRIP-PNT and DPNT-BP. CONCLUSION: The RIP seems reasonably accurate for analysis of respiratory waveform while subjects subsequently breathe against resistive loads.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of respiratory inductive plethysmography (RIP) waveforms to those obtained with whole body plethysmograph (BP) as this device gives a plethysmographic signal and a pneumotachograph (PNT). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Physiologic laboratory in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven subjects from the laboratory staff. INTERVENTIONS: This study was achieved during four consecutive periods in subjects breathing spontaneously and through different added resistive loads. Using the least square method calibration, two RIP waveforms, VRIP.BP(t) and VRIP.PNT(t), were simultaneously calculated with coefficients obtained from BP and from PNT volume waveforms, respectively VBP(t) and VPNT(t). For each recording, to compare volume waveforms, we calculated their differences in term of distances, DRIP-BP and DRIP-PNT, between the normalized RIP volume signal (respectively, VRIP.BP[t] and VRIP.PNT[t]) and its normalized reference (respectively, VBP[t] and VPNT[t]). We also calculated the distance DPNT-BP between the two normalized references VBP(t) and VPNT(t). RESULTS: No significant effect of load or time on the distance occurred. Including all the recordings, the mean distance DRIP-BP (3.4+/-1.1%) appears significantly lower than both the mean distance DRIP-PNT (4.5+/-1.3%; p<0.04) and the mean distance DPNT-BP (4.6+/-0.9%; p<0.008). For each period or load level, DRIP-BP appears to be lower than DRIP-PNT and DPNT-BP. CONCLUSION: The RIP seems reasonably accurate for analysis of respiratory waveform while subjects subsequently breathe against resistive loads.
Authors: André Schulz; Thomas M Schilling; Claus Vögele; Mauro F Larra; Hartmut Schächinger Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Cara M Smith; Steven N Chillrud; Darby W Jack; Patrick Kinney; Qiang Yang; Aimee M Layton Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Martin Glos; AbdelKebir Sabil; Katharina Sophie Jelavic; Christoph Schöbel; Ingo Fietze; Thomas Penzel Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Jonathan D Power; Charles J Lynch; Marc J Dubin; Benjamin M Silver; Alex Martin; Rebecca M Jones Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-10-05 Impact factor: 6.556