Evaluation of three approaches used for respiratory measurement in healthy subjects

Xiaojuan Duan; Xin Song; Caidie Yang; Yunchi Li; Liang Wei; Yushun Gong; Yongqin Li

doi:10.1088/1361-6579/acfbd7

Evaluation of three approaches used for respiratory measurement in healthy subjects

Physiol Meas. 2023 Oct 13;44(10). doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/acfbd7.

Authors

Xiaojuan Duan¹, Xin Song¹, Caidie Yang², Yunchi Li¹, Liang Wei¹, Yushun Gong¹, Yongqin Li¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Medicine, Army Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.
² Department of Respiratory Medicine, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China.

PMID: 37729923
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/acfbd7

Abstract

Objective. Respiration is one of the critical vital signs of human health status, and accurate respiratory monitoring has important clinical significance. There is substantial evidence that alterations in key respiratory parameters can be used to determine a patient's health status, aid in the selection of appropriate treatments, predict potentially serious clinical events and control respiratory activity. Although various approaches have been developed for respiration monitoring, no definitive conclusions have been drawn regarding the accuracy of these approaches because each has different advantages and limitations. In the present study, we evaluated the performance of three non-invasive respiratory measurement approaches, including transthoracic impedance (IMP), surface diaphragm electromyography-derived respiration (EMGDR) and electrocardiogram-derived respiration (ECGDR), and compared them with the direct measurement of airflow (FLW) in 33 male and 38 female healthy subjects in the resting state.Approach. The accuracy of six key respiratory parameters, including onset of inspiration (I_on), onset of expiration (E_on), inspiratory time (I_t), expiratory time (E_t), respiratory rate (RR) and inspiratory-expiratory ratio (I:E), measured from the IMP, EMGDR and ECGDR, were compared with those annotated from the reference FLW.Main results. The correlation coefficients between the estimated inspiratory volume and reference value were 0.72 ± 0.20 for IMP, 0.62 ± 0.23 for EMGDR and 0.46 ± 0.21 for ECGDR (p< 0.01 among groups). The positive predictive value and sensitivity for respiration detection were 100% and 100%, respectively, for IMP, which were significantly higher than those of the EMGDR (97.2% and 95.5%,p< 0.001) and the ECGDR (96.9% and 90.0%,p< 0.001). Additionally, the mean error (ME) forI_on,E_on,I_t,E_tandRRdetection were markedly lower for IMP than for EMGDR and ECGDR (p< 0.001).Significance. Compared with EMGDR and ECGDR, the IMP signal had a higher positive predictive value, higher sensitivity and lower ME for respiratory parameter detection. This suggests that IMP is more suitable for dedicated respiratory monitoring and parameter evaluation.

Keywords: diaphragm electromyography; electrocardiogram-derived respiration; respiratory airflow; respiratory parameters; transthoracic impedance.