• John Kellett, Min Li, Shahzeb Rasool, Geoffrey C Green, and Andrew Seely.
• Department of Medicine, Nenagh Hospital, Nenagh, Tipperary, Ireland. jgkellett@eircom.net
• Resuscitation. 2011 Nov 1;82(11):1381-6.

BackgroundHeart and breathing rates are predictors of disease severity and of a poor outcome. However, few reports have compared their machine measurements with traditional manual methods.SettingA small rural Irish hospital.MethodsThe heart and breathing rates of 377 acutely ill medical patients (mean age 68.3 SD 16.8 years) recorded by nursing staff at the time of admission to hospital was compared with those measured over 5 min by a piezoelectric belt and ECG monitor (the BT16 acquisition system).ResultsThe mean breathing rate measured by the nursing staff (20.9 SD 4.8 breaths per min) and that measured by the BT16 piezoelectric belt (19.9 SD 4.5 breaths per min) were significantly different (p 0.004), as were the nurse and BT16 measured heart rates (85.4 SD 21.3 vs. 81.2 SD 18.7, p 0.004), and the correlation coefficient between the two methods of breathing and heart rate measurement were low. Nurse measured breathing rate measurements were clustered around rates of 18, 20 and 22 breaths per min. Unlike those obtained by nurses, BT16 measured heart and breathing rates were shown by logistic regression to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.ConclusionThere is a poor correlation between breathing and heart rates measured by traditional methods and those obtained by the BT16 device. BT16 derived breathing and heart rates, but not those measured manually, were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…