Study Investigates the Impact of Automating Respiration Rate Measurement Using Masimo Rad-G with RRp

Masimo (NASDAQ: MASI) today announced the results of a prospective, observational study published in Acta Paediatrica in which researchers from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto evaluated the accuracy of plethysmographic respiration rate measurement (RRp) using Masimo Rad-G, a rugged, handheld device, on malnourished, hospitalized children in Nigeria.¹

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210328005012/en/

Masimo Rad-G with RRp (Photo: Business Wire)

Noting that in resource-limited environments, respiration rate (RR) measurement is often used to directly inform medical decisions for children with respiratory problems, but that manual RR counting “remains a challenge,” Dr. Nancy Dale and colleagues investigated whether a technological solution might provide a useful alternative to manual counting. To make the evaluation, the researchers compared simultaneous device measurements and nurse-measured manual RR counts on malnourished children. The device chosen was the Masimo Rad-G, which uses a pulse oximetry sensor to measure both oxygen saturation and RRp, and which has been shown to provide good agreement between RRp and pediatrician-measured RR.² They enrolled 514 children, aged 6 to 59 months, who were hospitalized between July 2019 and May 2020, in Borno State, Nigeria. Study nurses were trained to operate Rad-G and also perform manual RR counts as part of twice-daily patient assessment. RR was manually counted for 60 seconds while Rad-G simultaneously measured RRp via a sensor attached to the patient’s toe, and both measurements were recorded.

Analyzing the 6,889 paired RR measurements, the researchers found that the mean Rad-G RRp reading was 1.3 bpm (95% confidence interval 1.2 – 1.4 bpm) higher than the mean manual RR value. The mean absolute difference between the two methods was 4.4 bpm (95% CI 4.3 – 4.5 bpm). When RR was classified as either “normal” or “fast” breathing (using WHO pneumonia thresholds), the two methods resulted in the same classification 84% of the time. When RR was classified according to BedsidePEWS RR sub-scoring (a 4-point scale), 80% of the scores were the same, and 99.3% were within 1 point.