The Alveolar Gas Monitor: An Alternative to Pulse Oximetry for the Noninvasive Assessment of Impaired Gas Exchange in Patients at Risk of Respiratory Deterioration.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the limitations of pulse oximetry in detecting occult hypoxemia. The superiority of the alveolar gas monitor (AGM) compared to pulse oximetry (SpO) in predicting respiratory deterioration among COVID-19-positive individuals has previously been demonstrated. Here, we combine COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 individuals as a combined cohort of participants to determine if the AGM has similar utility across a larger, more generalizable cohort. Adult patients ( = 75) at risk of respiratory deterioration in the emergency department (ED) underwent prospective assessments of their oxygen deficit (OD) and SpO, simultaneously measured during quiet breathing on the AGM. The OD and SpO were then compared for their ability to predict the dichotomous outcome of the need for supplemental oxygen. The administration of supplemental oxygen was ordered by the clinical care team with no knowledge of the patients' enrollment in this study. In the logistic regression analysis, both SpO and OD significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen among COVID-19-negative individuals. However, in the multivariable regression, only OD ( < 0.001) significantly predicted the need for supplemental oxygen, while SpO ( = 0.05) did not in the combined cohort of COVID-19-negative and -positive individuals. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated the superior discriminative ability of OD (area under ROC curve = 0.937) relative to SpO (area under ROC curve = 0.888) to predict the need for supplemental oxygen. The noninvasive AGM, which combines the measurement of exhaled partial pressures of gas with SpO, outperforms SpO alone in predicting the need for supplemental oxygen among individuals in the ED at risk of respiratory deterioration regardless of the etiology for their symptoms (COVID-19-positive or -negative).