Key result
Acoustic respiration rate monitoring demonstrated significantly greater accuracy for respiration rate measurement (bias 0 vs 4.8 bpm) and higher specificity for apnea detection (93% vs 12%) compared to capnometry.
Why the study?
Does acoustic respiration rate monitoring accurately measure respiration rate and detect apnea compared to capnometry and impedance pneumography in anesthetized patients undergoing GI endoscopy?
Observational (n=98)
Single-blind
No
Does acoustic respiration rate monitoring accurately measure respiration rate and detect apnea compared to capnometry and impedance pneumography in anesthetized patients undergoing GI endoscopy?
Acoustic respiration rate monitoring provides accurate respiration rate assessment and reliable apnea detection during upper GI endoscopy under propofol anesthesia.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Acoustic monitoring may enhance apnea detection in endoscopy; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before adoption.
Study Objective: To assess the accuracy of respiration rate measurements and the ability to detect apnea by capnometry, impedance pneumography and a new method, acoustic respiration rate monitoring, in anesthetized patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Endoscopy procedures laboratory. Patients: 98 patients scheduled for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol-based anesthesia. Interventions: Patients were monitored for respiration rate with acoustic respiration rate monitoring, capnometry and impedance pneumography and values were compared to the manual counting of breaths by observation of chest wall movements. Additionally, when any respiration rate monitor indicated a cessation of breathing for 30 seconds or greater, the presumed apnea was confirmed by direct observation of the patient for absence of chest wall movements. Measurements and Main Results: Bias and precision for respiration rate measurement was 0 ± 1.0 bpm for acoustic monitoring, 4.8 ± 15.1 bpm for capnometry and 0.4 ± 5.9 bpm for impedance pneumography. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of apnea was 73% and 93% for acoustic monitoring, 73% and 12% for capnometry and 45% and 93% for impedance pneumography. Conclusions: Acoustic respiration rate monitoring was found to be accurate for assessment of respiration rate and to have similar or better sensitivity and specificity for detection of apnea compared to capnometry and impedance pneumography in the setting of upper GI endoscopy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goudra et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol-based anesthesia (n=98). Acoustic respiration rate monitoring (RRa) vs. Capnometry and impedance pneumography was evaluated on Bias for respiration rate measurement (bpm) (p=<0.001). Acoustic respiration rate monitoring demonstrated significantly greater accuracy for respiration rate measurement (bias 0 vs 4.8 bpm) and higher specificity for apnea detection (93% vs 12%) compared to capnometry.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: