Literature DB >> 35119597

Accuracy of pulse oximeters in measuring oxygen saturation in patients with poor peripheral perfusion: a systematic review.

Khashayar Poorzargar1,2, Chi Pham1,2, Jennita Ariaratnam3, Kang Lee4, Matteo Parotto5, Marina Englesakis6, Frances Chung1,2, Mahesh Nagappa7.   

Abstract

One of the most significant limitations of oximeters is their performance under poor perfusion conditions. This systematic review examines pulse oximeter model accuracy in adults under poor perfusion conditions. A multiple database search was conducted from inception to December 2020. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) adult participants (> 18 years) with explicitly stated conditions that cause poor peripheral perfusion (conditions localized at the oximeter placement site; or systemic conditions, including critical conditions such as hypothermia, hypotension, hypovolemia, and vasoconstricting agents use; or experimental conditions) (2) a comparison of arterial oxygen saturation and arterial blood gas values. A total of 22 studies were included and assessed for reliability and agreement using a modified Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies tool. We calculated the accuracy root mean square error from bias and precision we extracted from the studies. Most oximeters (75%) were deemed accurate in patients with poor perfusion. Modern oximeters utilizing more complex algorithms were more likely to be accurate than older models. Earlobe placement of oximeters seemed more sensitive, with greater measurement accuracy, than on fingertip placement. Only one study controlled for skin pigmentation, and none strictly followed Food and Drug Association recommendations for experiments to determine oximeter accuracy. Oximeters are accurate in poorly perfused patients, especially newer oximeter models and those placed on earlobes. Further studies are needed that examine multiple oximeter models used on a diverse selection of patients while following FDA recommendations to examine oximeter accuracy.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Measurement techniques; Monitoring; Oxygen saturation; Poor perfusion; Pulse oximeters; Pulse oximetry

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35119597     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00797-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   1.977


  8 in total

1.  The effects of motion artifact and low perfusion on the performance of a new generation of pulse oximeters in volunteers undergoing hypoxemia.

Authors:  Hartmut Gehring; Christoph Hornberger; Holger Matz; Ewald Konecny; Peter Schmucker
Journal:  Respir Care       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.258

2.  Masimo signal extraction pulse oximetry.

Authors:  J M Goldman; M T Petterson; R J Kopotic; S J Barker
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Combining transcutaneous blood gas measurement and pulse oximetry.

Authors:  Patrick Eberhard; P A Gisiger; J P Gardaz; D R Spahn
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Pulse oximetry to detect hypoxemia during apnea: comparison of finger and ear probes.

Authors:  Peter Lindholm; S Lesley Blogg; Mikael Gennser
Journal:  Aviat Space Environ Med       Date:  2007-08

5.  Recent advances in pulse oximetry.

Authors:  Maxime Cannesson; Pekka Talke
Journal:  F1000 Med Rep       Date:  2009-08-26

6.  Racial Bias in Pulse Oximetry Measurement.

Authors:  Michael W Sjoding; Robert P Dickson; Theodore J Iwashyna; Steven E Gay; Thomas S Valley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 176.079

Review 7.  Pulse oximetry.

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

8.  Do changes in pulse oximeter oxygen saturation predict equivalent changes in arterial oxygen saturation?

Authors:  Gavin D Perkins; Daniel F McAuley; Simon Giles; Helen Routledge; Fang Gao
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2003-06-11       Impact factor: 9.097

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.