Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05263791

Evaluating the Non-Inferiority of Airmod to Capnostream™35

This study is a multi-center clinical study of non-invasive medical device in Taiwan. After pre-anaesthesia evaluation, subjects who are suitable for intravenous general anesthesia (IVG) and age 20 years or older will be recruited in this clinical study. 150 subjects will be recruited at this site. The total 300 subjects will be recruited in other clinical centers at En Chu Kong Hospital simultaneously and Cathay General Hospital and Doctor Huang, Chien-Chung of the Anesthesia Department of MacKay Memorial Hospital is the PI of this study. The objective of this study is to evaluate the respiratory rate monitoring performance of "Airmod" respiratory monitoring assistant software, used with the "AccurSound Electronic Stethoscope AS-101" (TFDA Certificate No. 007347) compared to the "Medtronic Capnostream™35 Portable Respiratory Monitor" (TFDA Certificate No. 032283), hereinafter referred to as "comparison method", is non-inferiority than the comparison method. In addition, in order to improve the quality of patient care and ensure safety, this study will also synchronously record the breathing sounds from the " AccurSound Electronic Stethoscope " during the study with the respiratory symptoms of the comparison method, such as: asthma sounds, phlegm sounds, airway infiltration, water accumulation, obstructive sounds, respiratory arrest and respiratory tract edema, and analyze the vital signs for further improvement in the future. Primary Objective: To evaluate accuracy and performance of respiratory rate (RR) measurement from Airmod compared to the comparison method. The primary objective is to establish the non-inferiority. Secondary Objectives: 1. To assess the accuracy of respiratory ate measurement by Airmod comparison with manual-scored auscultation sound during the less sensitive period of Capnography on the comparison method. 2. To measure the agreement between AirRR* and ManCRR*. 3. To evaluate the response time of the first breath detection followed by administration of jaw thrust during the apnea period. The 3rd secondary objective is to compare the response time of Airmod versus the comparison method. 4. To compare the influence of subjects to variated breath rates on respiratory rate monitoring in bpm as measured by Airmod, manual-scored and the Capnostream™35. 5. To evaluate the safety and usability of Airmod. * AirRR Airmod-scored auscultation sound generated from AS-101 * ManCRR Manual-scored Capnography (ManCRR)originated from CapnostreamTM35 (K150272, Medtronic)

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Age range

20 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

En Chu Kong Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Provision of signed and dated informed consent form.
  • Stated willingness to comply with all study procedures and availability for the duration of the study.
  • Male or female with at least 20 years of age.
  • Fit for intravenous general anesthesia (IVG) as assessed by pre-anesthesia evaluation.

Exclusion criteria

  • Presence of neck pain or injuries.
  • Under the use of high-flow nasal cannula ventilation. Patients with advanced airway management equipment. (For instance, Supraglottic airway device, LMA, Endotracheal tube.) Some equipment, such as High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC), CPAP, suction machine, could continually make noise in the patient's airway, affecting auscultation and RR measurement.
  • Unable to wear Airmod and Capnostream™35 device related accessories at the investigator's discretion.
  • As a vulnerable population, including legal incapacity or evidence that a subject cannot understand the purpose and risks of the study, regardless of authorized representative support.
  • Unwilling or unable to comply fully with study procedures (including non-toleration of the capnography cannula) due to any disease condition which can raise doubt about compliance and influencing the study outcome.

Treatment and study plan

Airmod

Device

Both of the respiratory rate monitor (including experimental and reference device) are installed on the enrolled patients. The practitioners can clearly read the result of both devices.

Primary outcomes

  1. Test of the Difference Between airRR and mancRR

    Time frame: up to 4 hours

    The mean difference is based on the comparative pair (reference: mancRR - device under test: airRR) (unit: BPM) The measurement of airRR (airmod recorded breathing rate per minute: BPM ) (minimal: 4 BPM, maximal: 35BPM) The measurement of mancRR (manual scored capnography breathing rate per minute: BPM) (minimal : 0 BPM, maximal 39BPM)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Analysis to Assess the Accuracy of Respiratory Rate Measurement by Airmod in Comparison With Manual-scored Auscultation Sound During the Less Sensitive Period of Capnography on Capnostream™35

    Time frame: up to 4 hours

    The mean difference is based on the comparative pair (reference: acoRR - device under test: airRR) (unit: BPM) The measurement of airRR (airmod recorded breathing rate per minute: BPM ) (minimal: 4 BPM, maximal: 35BPM) The measurement of acoRR (manual scored auscultation sound breathing rate per minute: BPM) (minimal : 0 BPM, maximal 60BPM)

  2. Analysis to Measure the Agreement Between AirRR and ManCRR (Limits of Agreement and Bland-Altman Plots)

    Time frame: up to 4 hours

    The Bland-Altman plot and limits of agreement compare the following respiratory rates, all measured in BPM: airRR (Airmod recorded respiratory rate), capRR (capnography recorded respiratory rate), and acoRR (manually scored auscultation respiratory rate) against mancRR (manually scored capnography respiratory rate).

  3. Analysis to Evaluate the Response Time of the First Breath Detection Followed by Administration of Jaw Thrust During the Apnea Period

    Time frame: up to 4 hours

    We examined the response time for detecting the first breath after administering a jaw thrust maneuver during an apnea period. The results included the latency of the Airmod breathing response (measured in seconds), the latency of capnography (measured in seconds), and the difference in latency between Airmod and capnography (measured in seconds).

  4. Analysis to Compare the Influence of Subjects to Variated Breath Rates on Respiratory Rate Monitoring in Bpm as Measured by Airmod, Manual-scored and Capnostream™35

    Time frame: up to 4 hours

    The mean difference is based on the comparative pair (reference: mancRR - device under test: airRR) (unit: BPM) The measurement of airRR (airmod recorded breathing rate per minute: BPM ) (minimal: 4 BPM, maximal: 35BPM) The measurement of mancRR (manual scored capnography breathing rate per minute: BPM) (minimal : 0 BPM, maximal 39BPM).

  5. Safety and Usability of Airmod.

    Time frame: In the study , All participants spend less than 30 min writing thesis questionnaire.

    Questionnaire response from research staff, each question score 0 or 1 by candidate, the result stands for successful numbers over all candidates in specific question.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Heroic Faith Medical Science Co., Ltd.

Industry

Collaborators

  • Elite BioMedical Consulting Inc.

Registry information

Official study title

Evaluating the Non-Inferiority of Airmod to Capnostream™35 on Respiratory Rate Monitoring and User Experience Clinical Evaluation

Important dates

Study start
2021
Primary completion
2022
Study completion
2023
First posted
Mar 3, 2022
Registry last updated
Nov 19, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.