Effects of motion, ambient light, and hypoperfusion on pulse oximeter function
Effects of motion, ambient light, and hypoperfusion on pulse oximeter function
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0952-8180(97)00039-1
复制
发表时间：
1997-05-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Barker, SJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trivedi, NS;Ghouri, AF;Barker, SJ
研究目的：比较五种脉搏血氧仪在低灌注、探头运动和暴露于环境光干扰下的性能。设计：前瞻性研究。环境：大学医学中心的实验室设施。患者：未麻醉8例，ASA身体状态志愿者1例。干预措施：我们在三种情况下评估了五种常见的脉搏血氧仪：(1)手术室灯光照射血氧仪探头，(2)使用运动发生器产生2 Hz和4 Hz的手部运动，(3)在肱动脉上使用气动压缩装置模拟灌注不足。心电图（EGG）和动脉血气值被认为是心率（HR）和血氧饱和度的金标准。分别(热点;(2))。SpO(2)未显示，同时动脉SaO(2)-血氧计值大于4%被定义为错误。不显示HR，或HR大于ECG值的5%，也被认为是错误。测量结果及主要结果：由于环境光干扰，Ohmeda和Nellcor N200在SpO(2)和HR方面的总失败率最高（p < 0.05）。在2 Hz和4 Hz运动时，带手指探针的Nellcor N200和带C lodz的N200对SpO(2)的测量最准确（p < 0.05）。然而，当测量低灌注模型的HR时，所有血氧仪在4 Hz运动时都显着失败，Nellcor N200带手指探针和Nellcor C Lock血氧仪在这方面表现明显优于其他所有血氧仪；（p < 0.05），而临界血氧仪失败率为100%。结论：在非理想情况下，市售脉搏血氧仪的准确性存在显著差异，根据血氧仪和干扰源的不同，失败率约为5%至50%。此外，没有一种血氧仪在所有情况下都表现最佳。(C) 1997年由爱思唯尔科学公司
Study Objective: To compare the performance of five pulse oximeters during hypopfusion, probe motion, and exposure to ambient light interference.Design: Prospective study.Setting: Laboratory facility at a university medical center.Patients: 8 unanesthetized, ASA physical status I volunteers.Interventions: We evaluated five common pulse oximeters with respect to three scenarios: (1) an operating room light was shone on oximeter probes, (2) a motion generator was used to generate 2 Hz and 4 Hz hand motion, and (3) a pneumatic compression device overlying the brachial artery was used to simulate hypoperfusion. Electrocardiographic (EGG) and arterial blood gas values were considered gold standards for heart rate (HR) and oxygen saturation. (SpO(2)) respectively. SpO(2) nondisplay and values greater than 4% from simultaneous arterial SaO(2)-oximeter values were defined as errors. Nondisplay of HR, or HR greater than 5 % from ECG values, were also considered errors.Measurements and Main Results: The Ohmeda and Nellcor N200 with finger probe had the highest total failure rates with respect to both SpO(2) and HR due to ambient light interference (p < 0.05). The Nellcor N200 with finger probe and N200 with C lodz were the most accurate with regard to SpO(2) during 2 Hz and 4 Hz motion (p < 0.05). However, all oximeters failed dramatically during 4 Hz motion when measuring HR lit the hypoperfusion model, the Nellcor N200 with finger probe and the Nellcor C Lock oximeters performed significantly better than all others in term; of both HR and SpO, (p < 0.05), while the Criticare oximeter failed 100% of the time.Conclusion: There are significant differences in the accuracy of commercially available pulse oximeters during nonideal circumstances, with failure rates varying from approximately 5% to 50% depending on the oximeter and source of interference Furthermore, no single oximeter performed the best under all conditions. (C) 1997 by Elsevier Science Inc.