Resuscitation · 2009
Capnography and chest-wall impedance algorithms for ventilation detection during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Edelson Dana P, Eilevstjønn Joar, Weidman Elizabeth K, Retzer Elizabeth, Hoek Terry L Vanden, Abella Benjamin S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Hyperventilation is both common and detrimental during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Chest-wall impedance algorithms have been developed to detect ventilations during CPR. However, impedance signals are challenged by noise artifact from multiple sources, including chest compressions. Capnography has been proposed as an alternate method to measure ventilations. We sought to assess and compare the adequacy of these two approaches.
METHODS: Continuous chest-wall impedance and capnography were recorded during consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrests. Algorithms utilizing each of these data sources were compared to a manually determined "gold standard" reference ventilation rate. In addition, a combination algorithm, which utilized the highest of the impedance or capnography values in any given minute, was similarly evaluated.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 37 cardiac arrests, yielding 438min of data with continuous chest compressions and concurrent recording of impedance and capnography. The manually calculated mean ventilation rate was 13.3+/-4.3/min. In comparison, the defibrillator's impedance-based algorithm yielded an average rate of 11.3+/-4.4/min (p=0.0001) while the capnography rate was 11.7+/-3.7/min (p=0.0009). There was no significant difference in sensitivity and positive predictive value between the two methods. The combination algorithm rate was 12.4+/-3.5/min (p=0.02), which yielded the highest fraction of minutes with respiratory rates within 2/min of the reference. The impedance signal was uninterpretable 19.5% of the time, compared with 9.7% for capnography. However, the signals were only simultaneously non-interpretable 0.8% of the time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the impedance and capnography-based algorithms underestimated the ventilation rate. Reliable ventilation rate determination may require a novel combination of multiple algorithms during resuscitation.
METHODS: Continuous chest-wall impedance and capnography were recorded during consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrests. Algorithms utilizing each of these data sources were compared to a manually determined "gold standard" reference ventilation rate. In addition, a combination algorithm, which utilized the highest of the impedance or capnography values in any given minute, was similarly evaluated.
RESULTS: Data were collected from 37 cardiac arrests, yielding 438min of data with continuous chest compressions and concurrent recording of impedance and capnography. The manually calculated mean ventilation rate was 13.3+/-4.3/min. In comparison, the defibrillator's impedance-based algorithm yielded an average rate of 11.3+/-4.4/min (p=0.0001) while the capnography rate was 11.7+/-3.7/min (p=0.0009). There was no significant difference in sensitivity and positive predictive value between the two methods. The combination algorithm rate was 12.4+/-3.5/min (p=0.02), which yielded the highest fraction of minutes with respiratory rates within 2/min of the reference. The impedance signal was uninterpretable 19.5% of the time, compared with 9.7% for capnography. However, the signals were only simultaneously non-interpretable 0.8% of the time.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the impedance and capnography-based algorithms underestimated the ventilation rate. Reliable ventilation rate determination may require a novel combination of multiple algorithms during resuscitation.