Resuscitation
Volume 81, Issue 3 , Pages 317-322, March 2010

Capnography and chest-wall impedance algorithms for ventilation detection during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

  • Dana P. Edelson

      Affiliations

    • Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
    • Emergency Resuscitation Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Section of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Avenue, MC 5000, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. Tel.: +1 773 834 2191.
  • ,
  • Joar Eilevstjønn

      Affiliations

    • Laerdal Medical AS, Stavanger, Norway
  • ,
  • Elizabeth K. Weidman

      Affiliations

    • Emergency Resuscitation Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
  • ,
  • Elizabeth Retzer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
  • ,
  • Terry L. Vanden Hoek

      Affiliations

    • Emergency Resuscitation Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
    • Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
  • ,
  • Benjamin S. Abella

      Affiliations

    • Center for Resuscitation Science and the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Received 3 August 2009; received in revised form 28 October 2009; accepted 5 November 2009. published online 28 December 2009.

Abstract 

Objective

Hyperventilation is both common and detrimental during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Chest-wall impedance algorithms have been developed to detect ventilations during CPR. However, impedance signals are challenged by noise artifact from multiple sources, including chest compressions. Capnography has been proposed as an alternate method to measure ventilations. We sought to assess and compare the adequacy of these two approaches.

Methods

Continuous chest-wall impedance and capnography were recorded during consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrests. Algorithms utilizing each of these data sources were compared to a manually determined “gold standard” reference ventilation rate. In addition, a combination algorithm, which utilized the highest of the impedance or capnography values in any given minute, was similarly evaluated.

Results

Data were collected from 37 cardiac arrests, yielding 438min of data with continuous chest compressions and concurrent recording of impedance and capnography. The manually calculated mean ventilation rate was 13.3±4.3/min. In comparison, the defibrillator's impedance-based algorithm yielded an average rate of 11.3±4.4/min (p=0.0001) while the capnography rate was 11.7±3.7/min (p=0.0009). There was no significant difference in sensitivity and positive predictive value between the two methods. The combination algorithm rate was 12.4±3.5/min (p=0.02), which yielded the highest fraction of minutes with respiratory rates within 2/min of the reference. The impedance signal was uninterpretable 19.5% of the time, compared with 9.7% for capnography. However, the signals were only simultaneously non-interpretable 0.8% of the time.

Conclusions

Both the impedance and capnography-based algorithms underestimated the ventilation rate. Reliable ventilation rate determination may require a novel combination of multiple algorithms during resuscitation.

Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Cardiac arrest, Capnography, Artificial respiration, Chest-wall impedance

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 A Spanish translated version of the summary of this article appears as Appendix in the final online version at doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.003.

PII: S0300-9572(09)00580-2

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.003

Resuscitation
Volume 81, Issue 3 , Pages 317-322, March 2010