Bawua Linda K, Miaskowski Christine, Suba Sukardi, Badilini Fabio, Mortara David, Hu Xiao, Rodway George W, Hoffmann Thomas J, Pelter Michele M
School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
School of Nursing, University of Rochester, NY, USA.
J Electrocardiol. 2022 Mar-Apr;71:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2021.12.006. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
Impedance pneumography (IP) is the current device-driven method used to measure respiratory rate (RR) in hospitalized patients. However, RR alarms are common and contribute to alarm fatigue. While RR derived from electrocardiographic (ECG) waveforms hold promise, they have not been compared to the IP method.
Study examined the agreement between the IP and combined-ECG derived (EDR) for normal RR (≥12 or ≤20 breaths/minute [bpm]); low RR (≤5 bpm); and high RR (≥30 bpm).
One-hundred intensive care unit patients were included by RR group: (1) normal RR (n = 50; 25 low RR and 25 high RR); (2) low RR (n = 50); and (3) high RR (n = 50). Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate agreement.
For normal RR, a significant bias difference of -1.00 + 2.11 (95% CI -1.60 to -0.40) and 95% limit of agreement (LOA) of -5.13 to 3.13 was found. For low RR, a significant bias difference of -16.54 + 6.02 (95% CI: -18.25 to -14.83) and a 95% LOA of -28.33 to - 4.75 was found. For high RR, a significant bias difference of 17.94 + 12.01 (95% CI: 14.53 to 21.35) and 95% LOA of -5.60 to 41.48 was found.
Combined-EDR method had good agreement with the IP method for normal RR. However, for the low RR, combined-EDR was consistently higher than the IP method and almost always lower for the high RR, which could reduce the number of RR alarms. However, replication in a larger sample including confirmation with visual assessment is warranted.
阻抗式肺成像(IP)是目前用于测量住院患者呼吸频率(RR)的设备驱动方法。然而,RR警报很常见,并导致警报疲劳。虽然从心电图(ECG)波形得出的RR有前景,但尚未与IP方法进行比较。
研究检查了IP与联合心电图得出的RR(EDR)在正常RR(≥12或≤20次/分钟[bpm])、低RR(≤5 bpm)和高RR(≥30 bpm)方面的一致性。
按RR组纳入100名重症监护病房患者:(1)正常RR(n = 50;25名低RR和25名高RR);(2)低RR(n = 50);(3)高RR(n = 50)。采用Bland-Altman分析评估一致性。
对于正常RR,发现显著偏差差异为-1.00 + 2.11(95%CI -1.60至-0.40),95%一致性界限(LOA)为-5.13至3.13。对于低RR,发现显著偏差差异为-16.54 + 6.02(95%CI:-18.25至-14.83),95%LOA为-28.33至-4.75。对于高RR,发现显著偏差差异为17.94 + 12.01(95%CI:14.53至21.35),95%LOA为-5.60至41.48。
联合EDR方法与IP方法在正常RR方面具有良好的一致性。然而,对于低RR,联合EDR始终高于IP方法,而对于高RR几乎总是低于IP方法,这可能会减少RR警报的数量。然而,有必要在更大样本中进行重复研究,包括通过视觉评估进行确认。