Trial reportJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2024
Respiratory rate measurement by pressure variation in the high flow nasal cannula-system in healthy volunteers.
Trial report in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05991843 (Is it Possible to Measure an Adequate Respiration Rate Using Pressure Variation During HFNC), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Is it Possible to Measure an Adequate Respiration Rate Using Pressure Variation During HFNC
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effect of heart and respiratory rate measurement errors on the ability to predict the outcome of high flow nasal cannula therapy: a multi-centre study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study tests if the pressure variation in the HFNC-system may allow for monitoring of respiratory rate and the pressure difference during breathing may be a marker of respiratory effort.
methodsA HFNC system (Fisher & Paykel Optiflow Thrive 950) was modified by adding a GE Healthcare D-Lite spirometry sensor attached to a respiratory module and a pressure transducer. Participants were instructed to breathe regularly, quickly and slowly during 4 different conditions (HFNC flow 30 l/min and 70 l/min and with an open and closed mouth). Respiratory rate was counted based on pressure variation shown on the monitor graphs and compared with the count by observation of the participant. The pressure difference between inspiration and expiration was tested for correlation with the respiratory rate, as a surrogate marker for respiratory effort.
resultsTwenty five participants were included in this study. False detection of apnea in pressure-based measurements occurred in 10% and 11% of the measurements with open mouth position at 30 l/min and 70 l/min HFNC-flow, respectively, but not with a closed mouth. The 95% Limits of Agreement were - 1.85;1.91, -13.72;9,88, -2.25;2.47, -30.32;19.93 for the conditions of 30 l/min -closed mouth, 30 l/min - open mouth, 70 l/min - closed mouth and 70 l/min - open mouth, respectively. There was a correlation between pressure difference and respiratory effort, except for the condition of 30 l/min with open mouth.
conclusionsThe pressure variation in the HFNC system allows for respiratory rate and effort monitoring, but requires further development to increase precision.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05991843).
Indexed as
Identifiers
38867018What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.