Odell R M, Doran R M, Erickson R C, Zeilinger T C, Coyle M G
Department of Neonatology, Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, CA 91109-7013.
Crit Care Med. 1994 Apr;22(4):626-32. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199404000-00019.
To assess the ability of two different pulse oximeters to display continuous venous oxygen saturation through an extracorporeal bypass circuit with a degree of accuracy comparable to direct in-line oximetry.
Prospective, comparison study of pulse oximeters (test oximeter 1 or test oximeter 2) and an in-line oximeter (test oximeter 3).
A tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit.
Sixty-five consecutive neonates with severe cardiorespiratory failure undergoing extracorporeal life support.
The accuracy of the oximeters was determined by simultaneously comparing the saturation displayed by the pulse oximeters (test oximeters 1 and 2) and/or the in-line oximeter (test oximeter 3) with the measured fractional venous oxygen saturation obtained at regular intervals from the extracorporeal circuit.
Venous oxygen saturation was the criterion standard used to determine accuracy. Bias was defined as the mean difference between observed pulse oximeter or in-line oximeter values and the measured venous oxygen saturation. Mean biases were calculated for venous oxygen saturation measurements between 55% and 99% at intervals of 10%. Precision (the standard deviation of the bias) was calculated for low (55% to 75%), medium (76% to 81%), and high (82% to 99%) venous oxygen saturation values. A total of 983 venous oxygen saturation measurements were made and compared with simultaneous oximeter readings from test oximeter 1 (n = 600), test oximeter 2 (n = 478), and test oximeter 3 (n = 587).
Test oximeter 1 was the most precise instrument at each level of venous oxygen saturation (SD, 4.0 to 4.8). Test oximeter 3 demonstrated the most consistent mean bias (range, 8), but was the most inaccurate oximeter across all levels of venous oxygen saturation.
In addition to its known clinical usefulness, pulse oximetry may serve as an adequate substitute for in-line oximetry during extracorporeal life support.
评估两种不同脉搏血氧仪通过体外循环回路显示持续静脉血氧饱和度的能力,其准确度要与直接在线血氧测定法相当。
对脉搏血氧仪(测试血氧仪1或测试血氧仪2)和在线血氧仪(测试血氧仪3)进行前瞻性比较研究。
一家三级医疗新生儿重症监护病房。
65例连续接受体外生命支持的严重心肺功能衰竭新生儿。
通过将脉搏血氧仪(测试血氧仪1和2)和/或在线血氧仪(测试血氧仪3)显示的饱和度与从体外循环回路定期获取的测量静脉血氧饱和度分数同时进行比较,来确定血氧仪的准确性。
静脉血氧饱和度是用于确定准确性的标准。偏差定义为观察到的脉搏血氧仪或在线血氧仪值与测量的静脉血氧饱和度之间的平均差异。计算静脉血氧饱和度在55%至99%之间以10%为间隔的测量的平均偏差。计算低(55%至75%)、中(76%至81%)和高(82%至99%)静脉血氧饱和度值的精密度(偏差的标准差)。总共进行了983次静脉血氧饱和度测量,并与测试血氧仪1(n = 600)、测试血氧仪2(n = 478)和测试血氧仪3(n = 587)的同步血氧仪读数进行比较。
在每个静脉血氧饱和度水平上,测试血氧仪1是最精确的仪器(标准差,4.0至4.8)。测试血氧仪3显示出最一致的平均偏差(范围,8),但在所有静脉血氧饱和度水平上是最不准确的血氧仪。
除了其已知的临床用途外,脉搏血氧测定法在体外生命支持期间可作为在线血氧测定法的适当替代方法。