Key result
The Indirect RIP model provided highly correlated estimates of minute ventilation compared to the reference (R2 = 0.80-0.88), whereas direct calibration produced highly variable estimates (R2 = 0.62).
Why the study?
Does an indirect regression model using portable respiratory inductive plethysmography accurately estimate minute ventilation compared to direct calibration and reference methods?
Observational (n=9)
Does an indirect regression model using portable respiratory inductive plethysmography accurately estimate minute ventilation compared to direct calibration and reference methods?
An indirect regression model using portable respiratory inductive plethysmography provides accurate estimates of minute ventilation comparable to previously published models, outperforming direct calibration.
Indirect RIP may aid ventilation monitoring; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
A study was conducted to evaluate a portable respiratory inductive plethysmograph (RIP) as a means to estimate minute ventilation (V(E)) for use in controlling the flow rate of a physiologic sampling pump (PSP). Specific aims were to: (1) evaluate the ability of the portable RIP system to measure V(E) using a direct (individual) fixed-volume calibration method (Direct RIP model), (2) develop and evaluate the performance of indirect (group) regression models for V(E) prediction using output data from the portable RIP and subject demographic characteristics (Indirect RIP model), and (3) compare V(E) estimates from indirect and direct portable RIP calibration with indirect estimation models published previously. Nine subjects (19-44 years) were divided into calibration (n = 6) and test (n = 3) datasets and performed step-tests on three different days while wearing the portable RIP and breathing through a pneumotachometer (reference). Minute ventilation and portable RIP output including heart rate, breathing rate, and a motion index were recorded simultaneously during the 80 minute sessions. Calibration data were used to develop a regression model for V(E) prediction that was subsequently applied to the test dataset. Direct calibration of the portable RIP system produced highly variable estimates of V(E) (R2 = 0.62, average % error = 15 +/- 50) while Indirect RIP model results were highly correlated with the reference (R2 = 0.80-0.88) and estimates of total volume were within 10% of reference values on average. Although developed from a limited dataset, the Indirect RIP model provided an alternative approach to estimation of V(E) and total volume with accuracy comparable to previously published models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2008) reported an observational. Indirect RIP model vs. Direct RIP model and pneumotachometer reference was evaluated on Minute ventilation (V(E)) prediction accuracy. The Indirect RIP model provided highly correlated estimates of minute ventilation compared to the reference (R2 = 0.80-0.88), whereas direct calibration produced highly variable estimates (R2 = 0.62).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: