Literature DB >> 20014602

Comparison of forehead Max-Fast pulse oximetry sensor with finger sensor at high positive end-expiratory pressure in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

C L Hodgson1, D V Tuxen, A E Holland, J L Keating.   

Abstract

In the critical care setting it may be difficult to determine an accurate reading of oxygen saturation from digital sensors as a result of poor peripheral perfusion. Limited evidence suggests that forehead sensors may be more accurate in these patients. We prospectively compared the accuracy of a forehead reflectance sensor (Max-Fast) with a conventional digital sensor in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome during a high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment manoeuvre (stepwise recruitment manoeuvre). Sixteen patients with early acute respiratory distress syndrome were enrolled to evaluate the blood oxygen saturation during a stepwise recruitment manoeuvre. PEEP was increased from baseline (range 10 to 18) to 40 cmH2O, then decreased to an optimal level determined by individual titration. Forehead and digital oxygen saturation and arterial blood gases were measured simultaneously before, during and after the stepwise recruitment manoeuvre at five time points. Seventy-three samples were included for analysis from 16 patients. The SaO2 values ranged from 73 to 99.6%. The forehead sensor provided measurements that deviated more from arterial measures than the finger sensor (mean absolute deviations 3.4%, 1.1% respectively, P=0.02). The greater variability in forehead measures taken at maximum PEEP was reflected in the unusually large precision estimates of 4.24% associated with these measures. No absolute differences from arterial measures taken at any other time points were significantly different. The finger sensor is as accurate as the forehead sensor in detecting changes in arterial oxygen saturation in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome and it may be better at levels of high PEEP such as during recruitment manoeuvres.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20014602     DOI: 10.1177/0310057X0903700620

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care        ISSN: 0310-057X            Impact factor:   1.669


  5 in total

Review 1.  Pulse oximetry.

Authors:  Amal Jubran
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 9.097

2.  A multicentre prospective observational study comparing arterial blood gas values to those obtained by pulse oximeters used in adult patients attending Australian and New Zealand hospitals.

Authors:  Janine Pilcher; Laura Ploen; Steve McKinstry; George Bardsley; Jimmy Chien; Lesley Howard; Sharon Lee; Lutz Beckert; Maureen Swanney; Mark Weatherall; Richard Beasley
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 3.317

Review 3.  Pulse Oximetry for Monitoring Patients with COVID-19 at Home. Potential Pitfalls and Practical Guidance.

Authors:  Andrew M Luks; Erik R Swenson
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2020-09

Review 4.  Pulse oximetry: fundamentals and technology update.

Authors:  Meir Nitzan; Ayal Romem; Robert Koppel
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-07-08

5.  Accuracy of pulse oximetry in detection of oxygen saturation in patients admitted to the intensive care unit of heart surgery: comparison of finger, toe, forehead and earlobe probes.

Authors:  Sohila Seifi; Alireza Khatony; Gholamreza Moradi; Alireza Abdi; Farid Najafi
Journal:  BMC Nurs       Date:  2018-04-17
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.