Prospective observational study of 2 wearable strain sensors for measuring the respiratory rate

• Published in: Medicine Vol. 103; no. 29; p. e38818
• Main Authors: Sato, Hiroki, Nagano, Tatsuya, Izumi, Shintaro, Yamada, Jun, Hazama, Daisuke, Katsurada, Naoko, Yamamoto, Masatsugu, Tachihara, Motoko, Nishimura, Yoshihiro, Kobayashi, Kazuyuki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) 19.07.2024; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
• Subjects: 6700; Adult; Female; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Male; Monitoring, Physiologic - instrumentation; Monitoring, Physiologic - methods; Prospective Studies; Respiratory Rate - physiology; Spirometry - instrumentation; Spirometry - methods; Wearable Electronic Devices; Young Adult; vital signs; wearable sensor; strain sensor; respiratory rate
• ISSN: 0025-7974; 1536-5964; 1536-5964
• DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000038818

The respiratory rate is an important factor for assessing patient status and detecting changes in the severity of illness. Real-time determination of the respiratory rate will enable early responses to changes in the patient condition. Several methods of wearable devices have enabled remote respiratory rate monitoring. However, gaps persist in large-scale validation, patient-specific calibration, standardization and their usefulness in clinical practice has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 2 wearable stretch sensors, C-STRECH® which is used in clinical practice and a novel stretchable capacitor in measuring the respiratory rate. The respiratory rate of 20 healthy subjects was measured by a spirometer with the stretch sensor applied to 1 of 5 locations (umbilicus, lateral abdomen, epigastrium, lateral chest, or chest) of their body at rest while they were in a sitting or supine position before or after exercise. The sensors detected the largest amplitudes at the epigastrium and umbilicus compared to other sites of measurement for the sitting and supine positions, respectively. At rest, the respiratory rate of the sensors had an error of 0.06 to 2.39 breaths/minute, whereas after exercise, an error of 1.57 to 3.72 breaths/minute was observed compared to the spirometer. The sensors were able to detect the respiratory rate of healthy volunteers in the sitting and supine positions, but there was a need for improvement in detection after exercise.