Using Non-Invasive Respiratory Monitoring for COVID-19 Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis.

With the high incidence rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) and pneumonia reported in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the ability to determine the dominant etiology for severe respiratory distress quickly and accurately is crucial to a patient's well-being. Traditionally, D-dimer blood tests and diagnostic imaging studies would be utilized to determine the presence of a PE or a venous thromboembolism. However, COVID-19 places patients in a prothrombotic state and performing diagnostic imaging studies on all patients with COVID-19 would be impractical, making the need for a simple and reliable method to determine the likelihood of PE or venous thromboembolism a priority for emergency departments. The authors believe the use of non-invasive respiratory monitoring technology to assess lung function in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can aid in discerning the dominant hypoxia etiology and tailoring of their treatment. Here, the authors outline a case and method of using non-invasive respiratory monitoring of lung function in the successful diagnosis of a PE in a 62-year-old patient with COVID-19.

Respiratory Volume Monitoring in the Perioperative Setting Across Multiple Centers.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of nuisance (technical) alarms is the leading cause of alarm fatigue resulting in decreased awareness and a reduction in effective care. The Joint Commission identified in their National Patient Safety goals alarm fatigue as a major safety issue. The introduction of noninvasive respiratory volume monitoring (RVM) has implications for effective perioperative respiratory status management. We evaluated this within the Kaiser Permanente health system. METHODS: This observational study was conducted at 4 hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente system. Standard data from RVM, pulse oximetry, and capnography were collected postoperatively in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and/or on the general hospital floor. Device-specific alarm types, rates, and respective actions were recorded and analyzed by non-study staff. RESULTS: RVM was applied to 247 subjects (143 females, body mass index 32.3 ± 8.7 kg/m2, age 60.9 ± 13.9 y) providing 2,321 h. RVM alarms occurred 605 times (0.25 alarms/h); 64% were actionable and addressed, 17% were not addressed, 13% were self-resolved, and only 6% were nuisance. In a subgroup, RVM completed all 127 h of monitoring, whereas oximetry with capnography only completed 51 h with 12.9 alarms/h (73% nuisance). The overall RVM alarm rate was significantly lower than with either pulse oximeters or capnography monitors. We saw a nearly 1,000-fold reduction in nuisance alarms compared to capnography and a 20-50-fold reduction in nuisance alarms compared to pulse oximetry. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that alarm fatigue due to nuisance alarms continues to be a clinical challenge in perioperative settings. Among the 3 common technologies for respiratory function monitoring, RVM had the lowest rate of overall technical alarms and the highest rate of compliance. Furthermore, with early interventions, none of the subjects monitored with RVM suffered any negative outcomes.