Labored breathing pattern: an unmeasured dimension of respiratory pathophysiology

Valerie E Cyphers, Swet M Patel, Brendan D McNamara, William B Ashe, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Joseph Randall Moorman, Jessica Keim-Malpass, Shrirang Mukund Gadrey, Sherry L Kausch
{"title":"Labored breathing pattern: an unmeasured dimension of respiratory pathophysiology","authors":"Valerie E Cyphers, Swet M Patel, Brendan D McNamara, William B Ashe, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Joseph Randall Moorman, Jessica Keim-Malpass, Shrirang Mukund Gadrey, Sherry L Kausch","doi":"10.1101/2024.01.27.24301872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Respiratory failure is a common organ failure syndrome in hospitalized patients1. Vital sign monitoring (like respiratory rate & oximetry) is a necessary aspect of risk stratification, but it is not sufficient. In one study of hospitalized patients, 46% of the patients had no significant vital sign change in the 24 hours before an unplanned intubation2. Therefore, clinicians must also monitor for physical diagnostic signs that link the appearance of breaths to respiratory instability. Many pathognomonic patterns of high-risk labored breathing have been described. For example, when rib-dominant breaths alternate with abdomen-dominant ones, the patient is said to exhibit respiratory alternans, a sign of inspiratory muscle overload3. However, the manual assessment of such signs lacks sensitivity, inter-rater reliability, and scalability4. We sought to (a) identify technologies that can measure labored breathing and (b) assess their readiness for clinical adoption by hospitals. Methods: We selected four well-established diagnostic signs of labored breathing: (1) respiratory rate variability, (2) recruitment of accessory muscles (upper-rib elevation by the scalene and sternocleidomastoid muscles), (3) Abdominal Paradox (rib-abdomen asynchrony), and (4) respiratory alternans (rib-dominant breaths alternate with abdomen-dominant ones). We systematically searched PubMed using pre-specified keywords corresponding to these four signs. We identified 2868 abstracts. Two reviewers independently screened each abstract to ensure that it reported on technology that quantified the diagnostic sign of interest. A third reviewer resolved any disagreements. We excluded 2423 articles with an abstract review and included 445 articles for full paper review. We excluded an additional 127 articles after full paper review, and we were unable to acquire 4 articles. We included the remaining 314 articles for analysis. Results: Quantification of labored breathing has been attempted for over 50 years; the earliest study included in our analysis was published in 1975. Over 30 different hardware configurations have been tried, either alone or in combination; but none of them has been validated as a comprehensive solution to measure all the four diagnostic signs that we studied. Despite enormous improvements in sensor technologies and computing capacity, the scale of investigation has not meaningfully increased since 1975. In the first decade of kinematic measurements (1975-1984), there average annual number of studies was 2.7 and the median sample size was 19. In the decade prior to our study (2013-2022), the average annual number of studies was 11.3 and the median sample size was 20. To this day, a majority of the studies are conducted in a specialized laboratories (73% between 2013-2022) rather than clinical practice settings. Most studies aimed to measure the construct validity of a technology (19%) or to describe kinematic distributions in specific clinical scenarios (77%). Rarely did studies attempt to quantify the predictive validity for a clinical outcome (4%). We did not find any clinical trial where a kinematics-based early warning intervention was tested. Conclusions: This study describes a major bottleneck in the translation of bedside diagnostic signs of high-risk labored breathing patterns into measurable physiomarkers of respiratory instability. Despite half a century of attempted measurement, the technology readiness level for clinical adoption remains low.","PeriodicalId":501074,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Respiratory Medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.27.24301872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Respiratory failure is a common organ failure syndrome in hospitalized patients1. Vital sign monitoring (like respiratory rate & oximetry) is a necessary aspect of risk stratification, but it is not sufficient. In one study of hospitalized patients, 46% of the patients had no significant vital sign change in the 24 hours before an unplanned intubation2. Therefore, clinicians must also monitor for physical diagnostic signs that link the appearance of breaths to respiratory instability. Many pathognomonic patterns of high-risk labored breathing have been described. For example, when rib-dominant breaths alternate with abdomen-dominant ones, the patient is said to exhibit respiratory alternans, a sign of inspiratory muscle overload3. However, the manual assessment of such signs lacks sensitivity, inter-rater reliability, and scalability4. We sought to (a) identify technologies that can measure labored breathing and (b) assess their readiness for clinical adoption by hospitals. Methods: We selected four well-established diagnostic signs of labored breathing: (1) respiratory rate variability, (2) recruitment of accessory muscles (upper-rib elevation by the scalene and sternocleidomastoid muscles), (3) Abdominal Paradox (rib-abdomen asynchrony), and (4) respiratory alternans (rib-dominant breaths alternate with abdomen-dominant ones). We systematically searched PubMed using pre-specified keywords corresponding to these four signs. We identified 2868 abstracts. Two reviewers independently screened each abstract to ensure that it reported on technology that quantified the diagnostic sign of interest. A third reviewer resolved any disagreements. We excluded 2423 articles with an abstract review and included 445 articles for full paper review. We excluded an additional 127 articles after full paper review, and we were unable to acquire 4 articles. We included the remaining 314 articles for analysis. Results: Quantification of labored breathing has been attempted for over 50 years; the earliest study included in our analysis was published in 1975. Over 30 different hardware configurations have been tried, either alone or in combination; but none of them has been validated as a comprehensive solution to measure all the four diagnostic signs that we studied. Despite enormous improvements in sensor technologies and computing capacity, the scale of investigation has not meaningfully increased since 1975. In the first decade of kinematic measurements (1975-1984), there average annual number of studies was 2.7 and the median sample size was 19. In the decade prior to our study (2013-2022), the average annual number of studies was 11.3 and the median sample size was 20. To this day, a majority of the studies are conducted in a specialized laboratories (73% between 2013-2022) rather than clinical practice settings. Most studies aimed to measure the construct validity of a technology (19%) or to describe kinematic distributions in specific clinical scenarios (77%). Rarely did studies attempt to quantify the predictive validity for a clinical outcome (4%). We did not find any clinical trial where a kinematics-based early warning intervention was tested. Conclusions: This study describes a major bottleneck in the translation of bedside diagnostic signs of high-risk labored breathing patterns into measurable physiomarkers of respiratory instability. Despite half a century of attempted measurement, the technology readiness level for clinical adoption remains low.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
呼吸困难模式:呼吸病理生理学中一个无法测量的维度
导言呼吸衰竭是住院病人常见的器官衰竭综合征1。生命体征监测(如呼吸频率&;血氧饱和度)是风险分层的必要环节,但还不够。在一项针对住院患者的研究中,46% 的患者在意外插管前的 24 小时内没有明显的生命体征变化2。因此,临床医生还必须监测将呼吸出现与呼吸不稳定联系起来的物理诊断体征。已经描述了许多高危呼吸困难的病理诊断模式。例如,当以肋骨为主的呼吸与以腹部为主的呼吸交替出现时,患者就会表现出呼吸交替,这是吸气肌肉超负荷的一种迹象3。然而,人工评估此类体征缺乏灵敏度、评分者之间的可靠性和可扩展性4。我们试图(a)确定可测量呼吸费力的技术;(b)评估这些技术是否可被医院临床采用。方法:我们选择了四种成熟的呼吸困难诊断体征:(1) 呼吸频率变异;(2) 辅助肌募集(头皮肌和胸锁乳突肌的上肋抬高);(3) 腹部悖论(肋骨与腹部不同步);(4) 呼吸交替(肋骨为主的呼吸与腹部为主的呼吸交替)。我们使用预先指定的与这四种体征相对应的关键词对 PubMed 进行了系统检索。我们确定了 2868 篇摘要。两名审稿人对每篇摘要进行了独立筛选,以确保其报告的技术能够量化相关的诊断体征。第三位审稿人负责解决任何分歧。我们通过摘要审查排除了 2423 篇文章,并纳入了 445 篇文章进行全文审查。全文审阅后,我们又排除了 127 篇文章,有 4 篇文章我们无法获得。我们纳入了剩余的 314 篇文章进行分析。结果对呼吸困难进行量化的尝试已有 50 多年的历史;纳入我们分析的最早研究发表于 1975 年。已尝试过 30 多种不同的硬件配置,有的单独使用,有的组合使用;但没有一种配置被验证为可测量我们研究的所有四种诊断体征的综合解决方案。尽管传感器技术和计算能力有了巨大进步,但自 1975 年以来,调查规模并没有显著扩大。在运动学测量的第一个十年(1975-1984 年)中,年均研究次数为 2.7 次,样本量中位数为 19 个。在我们研究之前的十年(2013-2022 年),年均研究数量为 11.3 项,样本量中位数为 20 个。时至今日,大多数研究都是在专业实验室(2013-2022年间占73%)而非临床实践环境中进行的。大多数研究旨在测量一项技术的结构有效性(19%)或描述特定临床场景中的运动分布(77%)。很少有研究试图量化临床结果的预测有效性(4%)。我们没有发现任何对基于运动学的预警干预进行测试的临床试验。结论:本研究描述了将床旁高风险呼吸费力模式诊断征象转化为可测量的呼吸不稳定性生理标志物的主要瓶颈。尽管尝试测量已有半个世纪,但临床采用的技术准备水平仍然很低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Building and validating a predictive model for stroke risk in Chinese community-dwelling patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using machine learning methods CORELSA - Remote stethoscope system for fast and standardized auscultations of large numbers of patients with respiratory syndromes The post-viral GPNMB+ immune niche persists in long-term Covid, asthma, and COPD Lung functions among children and adolescents with sickle cell disease receiving care at Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital Kisumu, Kenya BMI-related Genetic Factors and COPD Imaging Phenotypes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1