Tomlin Kerry L, Neitenbach Anna-Maria, Borg Ulf
Department of Medical Affairs, Patient Monitoring & Recovery, Medtronic, 6135 Gunbarrel Ave, Boulder, CO, 80301, USA.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Jan 13;17(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0298-7.
Regional oximetry is increasingly used to monitor post-extraction oxygen status of the brain during surgical procedures where hemodynamic fluctuations are expected. Particularly in cardiac surgery, clinicians employ an interventional algorithm to restore baseline regional oxygen saturation (rSO) when a patient reaches a critical desaturation threshold. Evidence suggests that monitoring cardiac surgery patients and intervening to maintain rSO can improve postoperative outcomes; however, evidence generated with one manufacturer's device may not be applicable to others. We hypothesized that regional oximeters from different manufacturers respond uniquely to changes in oxygen saturation in healthy volunteers.
Three devices were tested: INVOS™ 5100C (Medtronic), EQUANOX™ 7600 (Nonin), and FORE-SIGHT™ (CASMED) monitors. We divided ten healthy subjects into two cohorts wearing a single sensor each from INVOS and EQUANOX (n = 6), or INVOS and FORE-SIGHT (n = 4). We induced and reversed hypoxia by adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen. We calculated the magnitude of absolute rSO change and rate of rSO change during desaturation and resaturation, and determined if and when each device reached a critical interventional rSO threshold during hypoxia.
All devices responded to changes in oxygen directionally as expected. The median absolute rSO change and the rate of rSO change was significantly greater during desaturation and resaturation for INVOS compared with EQUANOX (P = 0.04). A similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for INVOS compared with FORE-SIGHT; our study was underpowered to definitively conclude there was no difference. A 10% relative decrease in rSO during desaturation was detected by all three devices across the ten subjects. INVOS met a 20% relative decrease threshold in all subjects of both cohorts, compared to 1 with EQUANOX and 2 with FORE-SIGHT. Neither EQUANOX nor FORE-SIGHT reached a 50% absolute rSO threshold compared with 4 and 3 subjects in each cohort with INVOS, respectively.
Significant differences exist between the devices in how they respond to changes in oxygen saturation in healthy volunteers. We suggest caution when applying evidence generated with one manufacturer's device to all devices.
在预期会出现血流动力学波动的外科手术过程中,区域血氧饱和度测定法越来越多地用于监测脑提取后的氧状态。特别是在心脏手术中,当患者达到临界去饱和阈值时,临床医生采用一种介入算法来恢复基线区域氧饱和度(rSO)。有证据表明,监测心脏手术患者并进行干预以维持rSO可以改善术后结果;然而,使用一个制造商设备产生的证据可能不适用于其他设备。我们假设不同制造商的区域血氧饱和度测定仪对健康志愿者氧饱和度变化的反应是独特的。
测试了三种设备:INVOS™ 5100C(美敦力公司)、EQUANOX™ 7600(诺因公司)和FORE-SIGHT™(卡斯梅德公司)监测仪。我们将10名健康受试者分为两个队列,每个队列分别佩戴来自INVOS和EQUANOX的一个传感器(n = 6),或INVOS和FORE-SIGHT的一个传感器(n = 4)。通过调整吸入氧分数来诱导和逆转低氧血症。我们计算了去饱和和再饱和期间rSO绝对变化的幅度和rSO变化率,并确定每个设备在低氧血症期间是否以及何时达到临界介入rSO阈值。
所有设备对氧变化的反应均符合预期方向。与EQUANOX相比,INVOS在去饱和和再饱和期间rSO绝对变化的中位数和rSO变化率显著更大(P = 0.04)。与FORE-SIGHT相比,INVOS观察到类似但不显著的趋势;我们的研究能力不足以明确得出没有差异的结论。在这10名受试者中,所有三种设备均检测到去饱和期间rSO相对下降10%。在两个队列的所有受试者中,INVOS均达到了20%的相对下降阈值,而EQUANOX为1例,FORE-SIGHT为2例。与每个队列中分别有4例和3例使用INVOS的受试者相比,EQUANOX和FORE-SIGHT均未达到50%的rSO绝对阈值。
不同设备对健康志愿者氧饱和度变化的反应存在显著差异。我们建议在将使用一个制造商设备产生的证据应用于所有设备时要谨慎。