Literature DB >> 12578104

Comparison of a prototype esophageal oximetry probe with two conventional digital pulse oximetry monitors in aortocoronary bypass patients.

R C Prielipp1, P E Scuderi, M H Hines, J L Atlee, J F Butterworth.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Pulse oximetry (SpO2) is the non-invasive standard for monitoring arterial oxygen saturation in patients undergoing anesthesia, but is subject to external interference by motion artifact, peripheral vasoconstriction, and low cardiac output. We hypothesized that oximetry signals could be acquired from the esophagus when peripheral pulse oximetry is unobtainable. Therefore, we tested an esophageal stethoscope which incorporates transverse oximetry photodetectors and emitters in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery.
METHODS: Immediately after induction of general anesthesia in 10 coronary artery bypass (CABG) patients, Criticare and Nellcor digital probes were positioned on the left hand, concurrent with placement of an esophageal SpO2 probe. A computer recorded 5,910 matched oximetry signals every 15 sec during an average of 2.5 hrs. All SpO2 measurements were before, and immediately after non-pulsatile, hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. Data represent the percentage (median value [range]) of the total monitored time that a SpO2 value was displayed.
RESULTS: The Nellcor (99.8%, range 6.5-100%) and Criticare (99.7%, range 36.6-100%) acquired and displayed saturation signals more frequently (p = 0.003) than the esophageal monitor (75.3%, range 42.1-95.8%). The two standard digital oximeters had a mean difference of 0.9%, with a standard deviation of the differences of 0.9. The esophageal probe had a mean difference of -5.2% and -4.8%, with standard deviation of differences of 8.0 and 7.7 (compared to the Nellcor and Criticare monitors, respectively). A second-generation prototype shielded from electrocautery interference was tested in an additional 4 patients. The shielded prototype displayed signals more frequently (96.7%, range 68.4-100%) than the original esophageal prototype.
CONCLUSIONS: Digital pulse oximetry failure is common in CABG patients, probably because of marginal cardiac output and peripheral vasoconstriction associated with hypothermia. Our study could not confirm that esophageal technology, which utilizes the esophagus as a site of transflectance oximetry, was superior to conventional digital pulse oximetry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 12578104     DOI: 10.1023/a:1009941610320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  21 in total

1.  A pilot study of pharyngeal pulse oximetry with the laryngeal mask airway: a comparison with finger oximetry and arterial saturation measurements in healthy anesthetized patients.

Authors:  C Keller; J Brimacombe; F Agrò; J Margreiter
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Effect of motion artefact on pulse oximeters: evaluation of four instruments and finger probes.

Authors:  J A Langton; C D Hanning
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 3.  Principles of pulse oximetry: theoretical and practical considerations.

Authors:  C M Alexander; L E Teller; J B Gross
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Meta-analysis of arterial oxygen saturation monitoring by pulse oximetry in adults.

Authors:  L A Jensen; J E Onyskiw; N G Prasad
Journal:  Heart Lung       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.210

5.  The successful use of transesophageal pulse oximetry in a patient in whom peripheral pulse oximetry was unobtainable.

Authors:  S E Borum
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.108

6.  Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at Harvard Medical School.

Authors:  J H Eichhorn; J B Cooper; D J Cullen; W R Maier; J H Philip; R G Seeman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986 Aug 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry: present and future.

Authors:  U Elchalal; A Weissman; Y Abramov; D Abramov; D Weinstein
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.561

9.  Randomized evaluation of pulse oximetry in 20,802 patients: II. Perioperative events and postoperative complications.

Authors:  J T Moller; N W Johannessen; K Espersen; O Ravlo; B D Pedersen; P F Jensen; N H Rasmussen; L S Rasmussen; T Pedersen; J B Cooper
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  A prospective study of intraoperative pulse oximetry failure.

Authors:  P R Freund; P T Overand; J Cooper; L Jacobson; S Bosse; B Walker; K L Posner; F W Cheney
Journal:  J Clin Monit       Date:  1991-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.