Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
March 1, 2023Scientific ReportsOpen Access

The Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor demonstrated excellent agreement with the thoracic effort belt during overnight monitoring, achieving 99.5% accuracy within 3 breaths per minute and a mean absolute error of 0.48 Brpm.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Respiratory rate is a valuable vital sign for remote long-term monitoring, but implementation is challenging and contactless home-use devices aim to address this need.

Does the Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor accurately measure instantaneous respiratory rate and its summary statistics compared to a thoracic effort belt in patients with sleep-related breathing disorders?

Comparison

Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor vs thoracic effort belt

Design

Validation study

Key result

The Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor demonstrated excellent agreement with the thoracic effort belt during overnight monitoring, achieving 99.5% accuracy within 3 breaths per minute and a mean absolute error of 0.48 Brpm.

Authors

BBBartosz BujanTFTobit FischerSDSarah Dietz-Terjung

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

May enable remote RR monitoring in COPD and COVID-19; leaves open outcome impact in prospective studies.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=158)

Blinding

Open-label

Randomization

None

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does the Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor accurately measure instantaneous respiratory rate and its summary statistics compared to a thoracic effort belt in patients with sleep-related breathing disorders?

P
Population
158 adult patients with suspected sleep-related breathing disorders or chronic cardiopulmonary conditions underwent overnight monitoring to validate a contactless respiration monitor.
I
Intervention
Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor (continuous-wave Doppler radar) placed beside the bed
C
Comparator
Thoracic effort belt (TREB) of the polysomnography (PSG) setup
O
Outcome
Agreement of instantaneous breathing rate and breathing rate statistics (10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles) between the Sleepiz One+ device and the thoracic effort beltsurrogate

Main Result

Mean Difference: 0.48 (95% CI -0.88–1.61)

The Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor accurately estimates instantaneous respiratory rate and summary statistics during sleep compared to standard thoracic effort belts, demonstrating potential for remote long-term patient monitoring.

Limitations

  • Device setup was performed by healthcare professionals in the clinic, which may not reflect usability when set up by patients at home.
  • The clinical environment and polysomnography setup created an uncomfortable sleep environment, potentially altering natural sleep patterns.
  • The device is unable to report respiratory rate in the presence of significant body movement.
  • Further studies are required to evaluate the performance in the home environment
  • No further assessment of the comorbidities and their severity was made

Cite This Study

Bujan et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Sleep-related breathing disorders and chronic cardiopulmonary conditions (n=158). Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor vs. Thoracic respiratory effort belt (TREB) was evaluated on Agreement of instantaneous respiratory rate (mean absolute error) (MAE 0.48 Brpm, 95% CI -0.88 to 1.61). The Sleepiz One+ contactless respiration monitor demonstrated excellent agreement with the thoracic effort belt during overnight monitoring, achieving 99.5% accuracy within 3 breaths per minute and a mean absolute error of 0.48 Brpm.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7ba6ee48312d37e475da57https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30171-4
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share