4.6 Article

Evaluation of a Novel Noninvasive Respiration Monitor Providing Continuous Measurement of Minute Ventilation in Ambulatory Subjects in a Variety of Clinical Scenarios

Journal

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
Volume 117, Issue 1, Pages 91-100

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182918098

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Respiratory Motion, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no technology that noninvasively measures the adequacy of ventilation in nonintubated patients. A novel, noninvasive Respiratory Volume Monitor (RVM) has been developed to continuously measure and display minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume (TV), and respiratory rate (RR) in a variety of clinical settings. We demonstrate the RVM's accuracy and precision as compared with a standard spirometer under a variety of clinically relevant breathing patterns in nonintubated subjects. METHODS: Thirty-one voluntary subjects completed the primary study. MV, TV, and RR measurements were collected from the RVM and spirometer simultaneously for each participant on day 1 and day 2 and analyzed to determine accuracy, precision, and bias for normal, fast, slow, irregular, and closed-glottis breathing. RESULTS: Data demonstrated that RVM and spirometer measurements of MV and TV are equivalent in a wide range of ambulatory subjects with an average error <10% (95% confidence interval for accuracy <16%, precision <12%, and bias <11%). Repeated measures analysis of variance found no significant difference between spirometry and RVM individual measurements of MV, TV, and RR (P > 0.7), whereas a paired-difference equivalent test demonstrated, with 99% power, that both MV and TV measurements from the 2 devices are equivalent within 15%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates RVM's clinically relevant accuracy and precision in measuring MV, TV, and RR over a 24-hour period and during various breathing patterns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available