Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25735263›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2016

Monitoring minute ventilation versus respiratory rate to measure the adequacy of ventilation in patients undergoing upper endoscopic procedures.

Katherine Holley, C Marshall MacNabb, Paige Georgiadis, Hayk Minasyan, Anurag Shukla, Donald Mathews

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Ventilation monitoring during moderate sedation in GI patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katherine HolleyDepartment of Anesthesia, Fletcher Allen Healthcare, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. Katherine.holley@vtmednet.org.
C Marshall MacNabbRespiratory Motion, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA. Marshall.MacNabb@respiratorymotion.com.
Paige GeorgiadisUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. Paige.georgiadis@uvm.edu.
Hayk MinasyanUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. Hayk.minasyan@uvm.edu.
Anurag ShuklaUniversity of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. Anurag.shukla@uvm.edu.
Donald MathewsDepartment of Anesthesia, Fletcher Allen Healthcare, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA. Donald.mathews@vtmednet.org.
University of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic procedures performed under conscious sedation require careful monitoring of respiratory status to prevent adverse outcomes. This study utilizes a non-invasive respiratory volume monitor (RVM) that provides continuous real-time measurements of minute ventilation (MV), tidal volume and respiratory rate (RR) to assess the adequacy of ventilation during endoscopy. Digital respiratory traces were collected from 51 patients undergoing upper endoscopy with propofol sedation using an impedance-based RVM. Baseline MV for each patient was derived from a 30 s period of quiet breathing prior to sedation (MVBASELINE). Capnography data were also collected. Because RR from capnography was frequently unavailable, the RVM RR's were used for analysis. RR rate values were compared the MV measurements and sensitivity and specificity of RR to predict inadequate ventilation (MV <40 % MVBASELINE) were calculated. Initial analysis revealed that there is a weak correlation between an MV measurement and its corresponding RR measurement (r = 0.05). If MV is an actual indictor of respiratory performance, using RR as a proxy is grossly inadequate. Simulating a variety of RR alarm conditions [4-8 breaths/min (bpm)] showed that a substantial fraction of low MV measurements (MV <40 % MVBASELINE) went undetected (at 8 bpm, >70 % low MV measurements were missed; at 6 bpm, >82 % were missed; and at 4 bpm, >90 % were missed). A cut-off of 6 bpm had a sensitivity of only 18.2 %; while <40 % of all RR alarms would have coincided with a low MV (39.4 % PPV). Low RR measurements alone do not reflect episodes of low MV and are not sufficient for accurate assessment of respiratory status. RVM provides a new way to collect MV measurements which provide more comprehensive data than RR alone. Further work is ongoing to evaluate the use of MV data during procedural sedation.

Indexed as

Pulmonary VentilationRespiratory RateEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleHumansLung Volume MeasurementsMiddle AgedMonitoring, IntraoperativeReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAccuracyEndoscopyMinute ventilationRespiratory rate

Identifiers

PMID25735263
OpenAlexW2042014913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.