Grieve S H, McIntosh N, Laing I A
Department of Child Life and Health, University of Edinburgh, and the Neonatal Unit, Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, UK.
Crit Care Med. 1997 Dec;25(12):2051-4. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199712000-00025.
The aim of the study was to test the reliability and variation in the readings of two widely used pulse oximeters in preterm infants.
Two different pulse oximeters and a transcutaneous PO2 monitor were used to record the data continuously on a cotside computer database.
Sixteen preterm infants were studied in the Neonatal Unit, Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, Edinburgh, UK.
None.
Approximately one fifth of the time, the pulse oximeter readings could be established as artifactual. Study of the remaining four fifths of the data showed that, on average, the Nellcor pulse oximeter recorded saturation percentages 2.2% higher than the Ohmeda oximeter.
We recommend that all neonatal units adopt a policy of using different saturation alarm limits for these two instruments. We further recommend that other pulse oximeters be tested by a methodology similar to the one we present in this paper, before their use in monitoring oxygenation in preterm infants.
本研究旨在测试两种广泛应用于早产儿的脉搏血氧仪读数的可靠性及差异。
使用两种不同的脉搏血氧仪和一台经皮氧分压监测仪，在床边计算机数据库上持续记录数据。
在英国爱丁堡辛普森纪念妇产医院新生儿科对16名早产儿进行了研究。
无。
约五分之一的时间里，脉搏血氧仪读数可判定为伪差。对其余五分之四数据的研究表明，平均而言，Nellcor脉搏血氧仪记录的饱和度百分比比Ohmeda血氧仪高2.2%。
我们建议所有新生儿科针对这两种仪器采用不同的饱和度报警限值策略。我们还进一步建议其他脉搏血氧仪在用于监测早产儿氧合情况之前，采用与本文所呈现方法类似的方法进行测试。
