OBJECTIVE: To compare pulse oximetry saturation (Spo2 with arterial blood gas saturation (SaO2) obtained during clinical routine to determine the optimal lowest reliable value of SpO2 in ventilator-dependent patients before setting up a nurse-directed protocol of FIO2 titration. DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients with a pulse oximeter probe in whom arterial blood gas was measured with a radial artery line. INTERVENTIONS: SPO2 was recorded by the nurses and compared with SaO2 obtained by blood gas analysis with a co-oximeter. Two sensors currently used in our surgical intensive care unit and connected to a monitor (HP OmniCare M1165/66A; Hewett Packard, Andover, MA) were tested. In group I, the Durensor DS 100A (Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Pleasanton, CA), a reusable sensor, was used. In group II, the Oxisensor D25L (Nellcor Puritan Bennett), a nonreusable sensor, was used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In group 1, 64 data pairs were obtained. In this group, SaO2 ranged from 87 to 98% and SpO2 ranged from 92 to 100%. The bias was -1.90% and the limits of agreement ranged from -5.56 to 1.76%. In group 11, 47 data pairs were obtained. In this group, SaO2 ranged from 87 to 99% and SpO2 ranged from 92 to 100%. The bias was -2.49% and the limits of agreement ranged from -6.62 to 1.64%. CONCLUSIONS: In the range of SaO2 tested, regardless of the sensor used, SpO2 overestimated SaO2. Large limits of agreement were found. Based on this result, the authors concluded that before defining a nurse-directed protocol of FIO2 titration with SpO2, the material used daily must be evaluated. A minimum threshold SpO2 value of 96% in both groups I and II is more reliable to ensure SaO2 > or = 90%.
OBJECTIVE: To compare pulse oximetry saturation (Spo2 with arterial blood gas saturation (SaO2) obtained during clinical routine to determine the optimal lowest reliable value of SpO2 in ventilator-dependent patients before setting up a nurse-directed protocol of FIO2 titration. DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit in a university hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients with a pulse oximeter probe in whom arterial blood gas was measured with a radial artery line. INTERVENTIONS:SPO2 was recorded by the nurses and compared with SaO2 obtained by blood gas analysis with a co-oximeter. Two sensors currently used in our surgical intensive care unit and connected to a monitor (HP OmniCare M1165/66A; Hewett Packard, Andover, MA) were tested. In group I, the Durensor DS 100A (Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Pleasanton, CA), a reusable sensor, was used. In group II, the Oxisensor D25L (Nellcor Puritan Bennett), a nonreusable sensor, was used. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In group 1, 64 data pairs were obtained. In this group, SaO2 ranged from 87 to 98% and SpO2 ranged from 92 to 100%. The bias was -1.90% and the limits of agreement ranged from -5.56 to 1.76%. In group 11, 47 data pairs were obtained. In this group, SaO2 ranged from 87 to 99% and SpO2 ranged from 92 to 100%. The bias was -2.49% and the limits of agreement ranged from -6.62 to 1.64%. CONCLUSIONS: In the range of SaO2 tested, regardless of the sensor used, SpO2 overestimated SaO2. Large limits of agreement were found. Based on this result, the authors concluded that before defining a nurse-directed protocol of FIO2 titration with SpO2, the material used daily must be evaluated. A minimum threshold SpO2 value of 96% in both groups I and II is more reliable to ensure SaO2 > or = 90%.
Authors: Nicolas Nesseler; Jean-Vincent Frénel; Yoann Launey; Jeff Morcet; Yannick Mallédant; Philippe Seguin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Catherine Bertrand; François Hemery; Pierre Carli; Patrick Goldstein; Catherine Espesson; Michel Rüttimann; Jean Michel Macher; Brigitte Raffy; Patrick Fuster; François Dolveck; Alain Rozenberg; Eric Lecarpentier; Philippe Duvaldestin; Jean-Marie Saissy; Georges Boussignac; Laurent Brochard Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-04-28 Impact factor: 17.440