PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 30, 2016Physiological Measurement371 citationsOpen Access

An assessment of algorithms to estimate respiratory rate from the electrocardiogram and photoplethysmogram

PCPeter CharltonTBTimothy BonniciLTLionel Tarassenko

Key Result

The best algorithm for estimating respiratory rate from the ECG achieved an error of 0.0 ± 4.7 breaths per minute, performing comparably to clinical impedance pneumography (-0.2 ± 5.4 bpm).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=39)

Structured PICO

Do algorithms estimating respiratory rate from ECG and PPG agree with gold standard measures in healthy participants?

P
Population
Healthy participants (and simulated data)
I
Intervention
314 algorithms to estimate respiratory rate (RR) from the electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG)
C
Comparator
Reference RRs obtained using a nasal-oral pressure sensor, and impedance pneumography (IP)
O
Outcome
Agreement with a gold standard RR measure using the limits of agreement (LOA) techniquesurrogate

Novel algorithms estimating respiratory rate from ECG can outperform the clinical standard impedance pneumography.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs -0.2%

Limitations

  • Conducted in ideal conditions
  • Included only young healthy subjects

Abstract

Over 100 algorithms have been proposed to estimate respiratory rate (RR) from the electrocardiogram (ECG) and photoplethysmogram (PPG). As they have never been compared systematically it is unclear which algorithm performs the best. Our primary aim was to determine how closely algorithms agreed with a gold standard RR measure when operating under ideal conditions. Secondary aims were: (i) to compare algorithm performance with IP, the clinical standard for continuous respiratory rate measurement in spontaneously breathing patients; (ii) to compare algorithm performance when using ECG and PPG; and (iii) to provide a toolbox of algorithms and data to allow future researchers to conduct reproducible comparisons of algorithms. Algorithms were divided into three stages: extraction of respiratory signals, estimation of RR, and fusion of estimates. Several interchangeable techniques were implemented for each stage. Algorithms were assembled using all possible combinations of techniques, many of which were novel. After verification on simulated data, algorithms were tested on data from healthy participants. RRs derived from ECG, PPG and IP were compared to reference RRs obtained using a nasal-oral pressure sensor using the limits of agreement (LOA) technique. 314 algorithms were assessed. Of these, 270 could operate on either ECG or PPG, and 44 on only ECG. The best algorithm had 95% LOAs of -4.7 to 4.7 bpm and a bias of 0.0 bpm when using the ECG, and -5.1 to 7.2 bpm and 1.0 bpm when using PPG. IP had 95% LOAs of -5.6 to 5.2 bpm and a bias of -0.2 bpm. Four algorithms operating on ECG performed better than IP. All high-performing algorithms consisted of novel combinations of time domain RR estimation and modulation fusion techniques. Algorithms performed better when using ECG than PPG. The toolbox of algorithms and data used in this study are publicly available.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Charlton et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=39). ECG and PPG respiratory rate estimation algorithms vs. Impedance pneumography was evaluated on Respiratory rate estimation error (breaths per minute). The best algorithm for estimating respiratory rate from the ECG achieved an error of 0.0 ± 4.7 breaths per minute, performing comparably to clinical impedance pneumography (-0.2 ± 5.4 bpm).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1635317720a05aca78db5fhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/37/4/610
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper