| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 65
| Issue : 2 | Page : 146-152 |
|
|
Use of wireless respiratory rate sensor monitoring during opioid patient-controlled analgesia after gynaecological surgery: A prospective cohort study
Shang-Ming Cheng1, Jason Ju In Chan2, Chin Wen Tan2, Enhong Lu1, Rehena Sultana3, Ban Leong Sng2
1 Department of Women's Anaesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore
2 Department of Women's Anaesthesia, KK Women's and Children's Hospital; Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Sciences Academic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
3 Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
Correspondence Address:
Ban Leong Sng
KK Women's and Children's Hospital, 100 Bukit Timah Road
Singapore
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_1262_20
|
|
|
Background and Aims: Respiratory depression is a rare but serious complication during opioid administration. Therefore, early detection of signs of deterioration is paramount. The current standard of care of using manual intermittent respiratory rate (RR) measurement is labour intensive and inefficient. We evaluated a wireless sensor monitor, Aingeal (Renew Health Ltd, Ireland), to continuously monitor RR, heart rate (HR) and temperature compared to standard clinical measurements. Methods: Patients who underwent major gynaecological operations and received postoperative opioid patient-controlled analgesia were recruited. Patients were connected to the sensor monitor via a central station software platform. The primary outcome was comparison of RR between sensor and nursing monitoring, with secondary outcomes being HR and temperature between two methods. Feedback from patients and healthcare providers was also collected. Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare the vital signs recorded in sensor against those in patient's electronic record. Results: A total of 1121 hours of vital signs data were analysed. Bias for RR was -0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): -9.39, 7.60) breaths/min between nursing and averaged sensor readings. Bias for heart rate was -1.12 (95% CI: -26.27, 24.03) and bias for temperature was 1.45 (95% CI: -5.67, 2.76) between the two methods. Conclusion: There is satisfactory agreement of RR measurements, as well as HR and temperature measurements, by the wireless sensor monitor with standard clinical intermittent monitoring with overall good user experience.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
