Background: Respiratory rate (RR) is used for the diagnosis and management of medical conditions and can predict clinical changes. Heavy workload, understaffing, and errors related to poor recording make it underutilized. Wearable devices may facilitate its use.
Methods: RR measurements using a wearable photoplethysmography-based monitor were compared with medical grade devices in complementary clinical scenarios: Study one included a comparison to a capnograph in 35 healthy volunteers; Study two included a comparison to a ventilator monitor in 18 ventilated patients; and Study three included a comparison to capnograph in 92 COVID-19 patients with active pulmonary disease. Pearson's correlations and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess the accuracy and agreement between the measurement techniques, including stratification for Body Mass Index (BMI) and skin tone. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: High correlation was found in all studies (r = 0.991, 0.884, and 0.888, respectively, p < 0.001 for all). 95% LOA of ±2.3, 1.7-(-1.6), and ±3.9 with a bias of < 0.1 breaths per minute was found in Bland-Altman analysis in studies 1,2, and 3, respectively. In all, high accordance was found in all sub-groups.
Conclusions: RR measurements using the wearable monitor were highly-correlated with medical-grade devices in various clinical settings.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03603860.
Keywords: Remote patient monitoring; breaths per minute; comparative study; continuous monitoring; respiratory rate.