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.
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?
Observational (n=158)
Open-label
None
Yes
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?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
Respiratory rate (RR) is an often underestimated and underreported vital sign with tremendous clinical value. As a predictor of cardiopulmonary arrest, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation or indicator of health state for example in COVID-19 patients, respiratory rate could be especially valuable in remote long-term patient monitoring, which is challenging to implement. Contactless devices for home use aim to overcome these challenges. In this study, the contactless Sleepiz One+ respiration monitor for home use during sleep was validated against the thoracic effort belt. The agreement of instantaneous breathing rate and breathing rate statistics between the Sleepiz One+ device and the thoracic effort belt was initially evaluated during a 20-min sleep window under controlled conditions (no body movement) on a cohort of 19 participants and secondly in a more natural setting (uncontrolled for body movement) during a whole night on a cohort of 139 participants. Excellent agreement was shown for instantaneous breathing rate to be within 3 breaths per minute (Brpm) compared to thoracic effort band with an accuracy of 100% and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.39 Brpm for the setting controlled for movement, and an accuracy of 99.5% with a MAE of 0.48 Brpm for the whole night measurement, respectively. Excellent agreement was also achieved for the respiratory rate statistics over the whole night with absolute errors of 0.43, 0.39 and 0.67 Brpm for the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles, respectively. Based on these results we conclude that the Sleepiz One+ can estimate instantaneous respiratory rate and its summary statistics at high accuracy in a clinical setting. Further studies are required to evaluate the performance in the home environment, however, it is expected that the performance is at similar level, as the measurement conditions for the Sleepiz One+ device are better at home than in a clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
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.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: