The effect of dental scaling noise during intravenous sedation on acoustic respiration rate (RRa™)
10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.2.97
- Author:
Jung Ho KIM
1
;
Seong In CHI
;
Hyun Jeong KIM
;
Kwang Suk SEO
Author Information
1. Department of Dental Anesthesiology, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. stone90@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Acoustic Respiration Rate (RRa™);
Respiratory Rate;
Scaler;
Sedation
- MeSH:
Acoustics;
Auscultation;
Bias (Epidemiology);
Capnography;
Dental Scaling;
Methods;
Noise;
Respiration;
Respiratory Rate;
Ultrasonics;
Volunteers
- From:Journal of Dental Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
2018;18(2):97-103
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Respiration monitoring is necessary during sedation for dental treatment. Recently, acoustic respiration rate (RRa™), an acoustics-based respiration monitoring method, has been used in addition to auscultation or capnography. The accuracy of this method may be compromised in an environment with excessive noise. This study evaluated whether noise from the ultrasonic scaler affects the performance of RRa in respiratory rate measurement. METHODS: We analyzed data from 49 volunteers who underwent scaling under intravenous sedation. Clinical tests were divided into preparation, sedation, and scaling periods; respiratory rate was measured at 2-s intervals for 3 min in each period. Missing values ratios of the RRa during each period were measuerd; correlation analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were performed on respiratory rates measured by RRa and capnogram. RESULTS: Respective missing values ratio from RRa were 5.62%, 8.03%, and 23.95% in the preparation, sedation, and scaling periods, indicating an increased missing values ratio in the scaling period (P < 0.001). Correlation coefficients of the respiratory rate, measured with two different methods, were 0.692, 0.677, and 0.562 in each respective period. Mean capnography-RRa biases in Bland-Altman analyses were −0.03, −0.27, and −0.61 in each respective period (P < 0.001); limits of agreement were −4.84–4.45, −4.89–4.15, and −6.18–4.95 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The probability of missing respiratory rate values was higher during scaling when RRa was used for measurement. Therefore, the use of RRa alone for respiration monitoring during ultrasonic scaling may not be safe.
