A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients

Timmy Li,1 Shreya Divatia,2 Justine McKittrick,3 Jeena Moss,3 Nicole M Hijnen,2 Lance B Becker11Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA; 2Department of Connected Sensing, Philips North America Corporation, Cambridg...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Li T, Divatia S, McKittrick J, Moss J, Hijnen NM, Becker LB
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dove Medical Press 2019-05-01
Series:Open Access Emergency Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.dovepress.com/a-pilot-study-of-respiratory-rate-derived-from-a-wearable-biosensor-co-peer-reviewed-article-OAEM
_version_ 1818490032292364288
author Li T
Divatia S
McKittrick J
Moss J
Hijnen NM
Becker LB
author_facet Li T
Divatia S
McKittrick J
Moss J
Hijnen NM
Becker LB
author_sort Li T
collection DOAJ
description Timmy Li,1 Shreya Divatia,2 Justine McKittrick,3 Jeena Moss,3 Nicole M Hijnen,2 Lance B Becker11Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA; 2Department of Connected Sensing, Philips North America Corporation, Cambridge, MA 02171, USA; 3Department of Emergency Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY 11030, USAPurpose: Respiratory rate is assessed less frequently than other vital signs, and documented respiratory rates are often erroneous. This pilot study compared respiratory rates derived from a wearable biosensor to those derived from capnography.Methods: Emergency department patients with respiratory complaints were enrolled and had capnography via nasal cannula and a wireless, wearable biosensor from Philips applied for approximately one hour. Respiratory rates were obtained from both of these methods. We determined the difference between median respiratory rates obtained from the biosensor and capnography and the proportion of biosensor-derived respiratory rates that were within three breaths/minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates for each patient. A Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the strength of the correlation between mean respiratory rates derived from both methods. Plots of minute-by-minute respiratory rates, per patient, for each monitoring method were shown to two physicians. The physicians identified time periods in which the respiratory rates appeared invalid. The proportion of time with invalid respiratory rates for each patient, for each method, was calculated and averaged.Results: We analyzed data for 17 patients. Median biosensor-derived respiratory rate was 20 breaths/minute (range: 7–40 breaths/minute) and median capnography-derived respiratory rate was 25 breaths/minute (range: 0–58 breaths/minute). Overall, 72.8% of biosensor-derived respiratory rates were within three breaths per minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates. Overall mean difference was 3.5 breaths/minute (±5.2 breaths/minute). Respiratory rates appeared invalid 0.7% of the time for the biosensor and 5.0% of the time for capnography.Conclusion: Our pilot study suggests that the Philips wearable biosensor can continuously obtain respiratory rates that are comparable to capnography-derived respiratory rates among emergency department patients with respiratory complaints.Keywords: respiratory rate, emergency department, clinical monitoring
first_indexed 2024-12-10T17:11:43Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c9e77f55c2604c5484811342cc6d87a6
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1179-1500
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T17:11:43Z
publishDate 2019-05-01
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format Article
series Open Access Emergency Medicine
spelling doaj.art-c9e77f55c2604c5484811342cc6d87a62022-12-22T01:40:17ZengDove Medical PressOpen Access Emergency Medicine1179-15002019-05-01Volume 1110310845676A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patientsLi TDivatia SMcKittrick JMoss JHijnen NMBecker LBTimmy Li,1 Shreya Divatia,2 Justine McKittrick,3 Jeena Moss,3 Nicole M Hijnen,2 Lance B Becker11Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, NY 11030, USA; 2Department of Connected Sensing, Philips North America Corporation, Cambridge, MA 02171, USA; 3Department of Emergency Medicine, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY 11030, USAPurpose: Respiratory rate is assessed less frequently than other vital signs, and documented respiratory rates are often erroneous. This pilot study compared respiratory rates derived from a wearable biosensor to those derived from capnography.Methods: Emergency department patients with respiratory complaints were enrolled and had capnography via nasal cannula and a wireless, wearable biosensor from Philips applied for approximately one hour. Respiratory rates were obtained from both of these methods. We determined the difference between median respiratory rates obtained from the biosensor and capnography and the proportion of biosensor-derived respiratory rates that were within three breaths/minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates for each patient. A Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the strength of the correlation between mean respiratory rates derived from both methods. Plots of minute-by-minute respiratory rates, per patient, for each monitoring method were shown to two physicians. The physicians identified time periods in which the respiratory rates appeared invalid. The proportion of time with invalid respiratory rates for each patient, for each method, was calculated and averaged.Results: We analyzed data for 17 patients. Median biosensor-derived respiratory rate was 20 breaths/minute (range: 7–40 breaths/minute) and median capnography-derived respiratory rate was 25 breaths/minute (range: 0–58 breaths/minute). Overall, 72.8% of biosensor-derived respiratory rates were within three breaths per minute of the capnography-derived respiratory rates. Overall mean difference was 3.5 breaths/minute (±5.2 breaths/minute). Respiratory rates appeared invalid 0.7% of the time for the biosensor and 5.0% of the time for capnography.Conclusion: Our pilot study suggests that the Philips wearable biosensor can continuously obtain respiratory rates that are comparable to capnography-derived respiratory rates among emergency department patients with respiratory complaints.Keywords: respiratory rate, emergency department, clinical monitoringhttps://www.dovepress.com/a-pilot-study-of-respiratory-rate-derived-from-a-wearable-biosensor-co-peer-reviewed-article-OAEMrespiratory rateemergency departmentclinical monitoring
spellingShingle Li T
Divatia S
McKittrick J
Moss J
Hijnen NM
Becker LB
A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
Open Access Emergency Medicine
respiratory rate
emergency department
clinical monitoring
title A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
title_full A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
title_fullStr A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
title_full_unstemmed A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
title_short A pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
title_sort pilot study of respiratory rate derived from a wearable biosensor compared with capnography in emergency department patients
topic respiratory rate
emergency department
clinical monitoring
url https://www.dovepress.com/a-pilot-study-of-respiratory-rate-derived-from-a-wearable-biosensor-co-peer-reviewed-article-OAEM
work_keys_str_mv AT lit apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT divatias apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT mckittrickj apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT mossj apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT hijnennm apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT beckerlb apilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT lit pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT divatias pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT mckittrickj pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT mossj pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT hijnennm pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients
AT beckerlb pilotstudyofrespiratoryratederivedfromawearablebiosensorcomparedwithcapnographyinemergencydepartmentpatients