Suppr超能文献

新型便携式质谱仪的响应时间研究

Response time studies of a new, portable mass spectrometer.

作者信息

Delaney P A, Barnas G M, Mackenzie C F

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Monit. 1997 May;13(3):181-9. doi: 10.1023/a:1007353818448.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Mass spectrometers are frequently used by anesthesiologists perioperatively to monitor patients' respiratory function and levels of inhaled anesthetics. Due to size, complexity and expense, they are typically used in a time-sharing manner which degrades their performance. We assessed the accuracy of the Random Access Mass Spectrometer (RAMS), Marquette Electronics) which is small enough to be dedicated to a single patient.

METHODS

We compared the 10-90% rise times for O2, CO2, N2O and isoflurane for the RAMS with different catheter configurations to those of a MedSpect mass spectrometer (Allegheny International Medical Technology) operating under ideal conditions. For CO2 the lag of the RAMS relative to the MedSpect was also measured. Next, perioperative conditions were stimulated by ventilating anesthetized dogs with a variety of inhalatory gases and ventilatory parameters, and the interchangeability of the two devices was assessed.

RESULTS

When fitted with a catheter with minimal dead space the MedSpect had rise times of 0.11-0.12 sec while the RAMS had rise times of 0.07-0.12 sec and a delay of 0.19 sec compared to the MedSpect. The rise times and delay of the RAMS increased when using a larger catheter and water trap. Although there were statistically significant differences in some values for inhaled and end-tidal gases under simulated perioperative conditions, particularly at the higher frequencies, these differences were small and for most purposes not clinically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the RAMS configured for clinical conditions performs nearly as well as the MedSpect under ideal conditions. The small differences between the two, confined almost entirely to their end-tidal CO2 values, could be due to differences in instrument calibration, by the larger sampling catheter commonly used in clinical settings, or by a combination of both factors. Therefore the RAMS is sufficiently accurate for clinical use and would alleviate problems associated with time-shared mass spectrometers.

摘要

目的

麻醉医生在围手术期经常使用质谱仪来监测患者的呼吸功能和吸入麻醉剂的水平。由于尺寸、复杂性和成本,它们通常以分时方式使用,这会降低其性能。我们评估了随机存取质谱仪(RAMS,马奎特电子公司)的准确性,该质谱仪体积小到足以专门用于单个患者。

方法

我们将RAMS在不同导管配置下的氧气、二氧化碳、氧化亚氮和异氟烷的10 - 90%上升时间与在理想条件下运行的MedSpect质谱仪(阿勒格尼国际医疗技术公司)的上升时间进行了比较。对于二氧化碳,还测量了RAMS相对于MedSpect的滞后时间。接下来,通过用各种吸入气体和通气参数对麻醉犬进行通气来模拟围手术期情况,并评估这两种设备的互换性。

结果

当配备死腔最小的导管时,MedSpect的上升时间为0.11 - 0.12秒,而RAMS的上升时间为0.07 - 0.12秒,与MedSpect相比延迟为0.19秒。使用更大的导管和集水器时,RAMS的上升时间和延迟会增加。尽管在模拟围手术期条件下,吸入气体和呼气末气体的某些值存在统计学上的显著差异,特别是在较高频率时,但这些差异很小,在大多数情况下临床意义不大。

结论

我们的结果表明,配置用于临床情况的RAMS在理想条件下的性能几乎与MedSpect一样好。两者之间的微小差异几乎完全局限于呼气末二氧化碳值,这可能是由于仪器校准的差异、临床环境中常用的较大采样导管,或两者因素的综合作用。因此,RAMS在临床上足够准确,并且可以缓解与分时质谱仪相关的问题。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验