Dumas C, Wahr J A, Tremper K K
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-0048, USA.
Anesth Analg. 1996 Aug;83(2):269-72. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199608000-00012.
The frequency and nature of spurious pulse oximetry readings were compared using both a conventional pulse oximeter (CPO) and a prototype Masimo signal extraction technology pulse oximeter (Masimo SET). At a university hospital, 50 ASA physical status I-IV adult patients who underwent general or spinal-epidural anesthesia were selected from a group of 250 patients on the basis of high-alarm generation with routine postoperative pulse oximetry. Pulse oximetry data were recorded simultaneously from both devices with a computer. Overall, the CPO alarm frequency (i.e., oxygen saturation < 90%, or complete signal loss) was once every 13 min, and 87% of these alarms were considered false. Alarms were considered false based on reference electrocardiographs (16 patients), arterial blood gases (7 patients), and clinical assessment. The prototype Masimo SET device alarm frequency was once every 30 min, and 59% of these were considered false. During arm motion with 15 patients, the CPO device produced spurious signals on 54 occasions compared with five for the prototype Masimo SET. The incidence of artifactual pulse oximetry events during patient motion appear to be substantially reduced with the prototype Masimo SET device, relative to a CPO device.
使用传统脉搏血氧仪（CPO）和原型Masimo信号提取技术脉搏血氧仪（Masimo SET）比较了虚假脉搏血氧仪读数的频率和性质。在一所大学医院，从250名患者中挑选出50名接受全身或脊麻-硬膜外麻醉的ASA身体状况I-IV级成年患者，这些患者是根据术后常规脉搏血氧仪发出高警报而选出的。用计算机同时记录两台设备的脉搏血氧仪数据。总体而言，CPO警报频率（即氧饱和度<90%，或信号完全丢失）为每13分钟一次，其中87%的警报被认为是误报。根据参考心电图（16例患者）、动脉血气（7例患者）和临床评估，警报被认为是误报。原型Masimo SET设备的警报频率为每30分钟一次，其中59%被认为是误报。在15名患者手臂运动期间，CPO设备产生了54次虚假信号，而原型Masimo SET为5次。与CPO设备相比，使用原型Masimo SET设备时，患者运动期间伪脉搏血氧仪事件的发生率似乎大幅降低。
