A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
Open Access
- 1 May 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Open Access Emergency Medicine
- Vol. ume 11, 103-108
- https://doi.org/10.2147/oaem.s198842
Abstract
Purpose: Respiratory rate is assessed less frequently than other vital signs, and documented respiratory rates are often erroneous. This pilot study compared respiratory rates derived from a wearable biosensor to those derived from capnography. Methods: Emergency department patients with respiratory complaints were enrolled and had capnography via nasal cannula and a wireless, wearable biosensor from Philips applied for approximately one hour. Respiratory rates were obtained from both of these methods. We determined the difference between median respiratory rates obtained from the biosensor and capnography and the proportion of biosensor-derived respiratory rates that were within three breaths/minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates for each patient. A Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the strength of the correlation between mean respiratory rates derived from both methods. Plots of minute-by-minute respiratory rates, per patient, for each monitoring method were shown to two physicians. The physicians identified time periods in which the respiratory rates appeared invalid. The proportion of time with invalid respiratory rates for each patient, for each method, was calculated and averaged. Results: We analyzed data for 17 patients. Median biosensor-derived respiratory rate was 20 breaths/minute (range: 7–40 breaths/minute) and median capnography-derived respiratory rate was 25 breaths/minute (range: 0–58 breaths/minute). Overall, 72.8% of biosensor-derived respiratory rates were within three breaths per minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates. Overall mean difference was 3.5 breaths/minute (±5.2 breaths/minute). Respiratory rates appeared invalid 0.7% of the time for the biosensor and 5.0% of the time for capnography. Conclusion: Our pilot study suggests that the Philips wearable biosensor can continuously obtain respiratory rates that are comparable to capnography-derived respiratory rates among emergency department patients with respiratory complaints.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Accuracy Comparisons between Manual and Automated Respiratory Rate for Detecting Clinical Deterioration in Ward PatientsJournal of Hospital Medicine, 2018
- The Respiratory Rate: A Neglected Triage Tool for Pre‐hospital Identification of Trauma PatientsWorld Journal of Surgery, 2017
- Multicenter Study Validating Accuracy of a Continuous Respiratory Rate Measurement Derived From Pulse Oximetry: A Comparison With CapnographyAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2017
- Accurate respiratory rates count: So should you!Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 2017
- Importance of respiratory rate for the prediction of clinical deterioration after emergency department discharge: a single‐center, case–control studyAcute Medicine & Surgery, 2016
- Photoplethysmography respiratory rate monitoring in patients receiving procedural sedation and analgesia for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 2016
- The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)JAMA, 2016
- Pulse oximetry-derived respiratory rate in general care floor patientsJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 2014
- Demonstrating the accuracy of an in-hospital ambulatory patient monitoring solution in measuring respiratory rate2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2013
- The Value of Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) in Surgical In-Patients: A Prospective Observational StudyThe Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2006