Validation of a new method to assess respiratory effort non-invasively

• Main Author: Marta Serwatko 1989-
• Other Authors: Háskólinn í Reykjavík
• Format: Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: 2016
• Subjects: Heilbrigðisverkfræði; Meistaraprófsritgerðir; Svefn; Öndun; Tækni- og verkfræðideild; Biomedical engineering; Respiration; Sleep; School of Science and Engineering; Iceland
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/23804

Study Objectives: To compare esophageal pressure (Pes) manometry as a measurement of respiratory effort with two, novel signals derived from calibrated respiratory inductive plethysmography (cRIP). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland. Participants: 31 subjects (18 males and 13 females, mean ± standard deviation; body mass index 29.9 ± 5.4 kg/m2 , age 47.1 ± 12.9 years, apnea-hypopnea index = 9.3 ± 9.6 per hour). Measurements and Results: Respiratory effort was assessed simultaneously with Pes manometry and cRIP. It is assumed that the breathing movement from the cRIP can be divided into two components, i.e. breathing component and a non-breathing component. Hence, two novel signals were derived from cRIP belts, i.e. cRIP-1 and cRIP-2. These are thought by the authors to reflect two parameters, the former the respiratory drive, and the latter the respiratory effort. Scored events in the cRIP signals were compared with scored events in the Pes signal. Furthermore, it was investigated if cRIP-1, cRIP-2, or Pes events preceded arousals. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of scoring respiratory effort (RE) events manually using Pes compared to cRIP-2 was 0.50 and 0.43, respectively. Significant difference was found in the sensitivity of Pes followed by cRIP-1 in sleep stage N1, between N2 and REM (p<0.001). Also, between cRIP-1, N1 and N3 (p=0.001). The correlation coefficient between the number of RE events per patient determined by Pes measurement and cRIP-1 and cRIP-2 was 0.66 and 0.34, respectively. The correlation coefficient between the number of arousals determined by Pes compared with cRIP-1 and cRIP-2 was 0.88 and 0.44, respectively. Conclusions: cRIP-1 and cRIP-2 are important addition and may be very useful in choosing the right treatment option for patients. The cRIP-1 is better in predicting RERA, thus might serve as an alternative to the highly invasive Pes method. Markmið verkefnis: Samanburður tveggja mæliaðferða til ...