Academic literature on the topic 'Pulse oximetry'

Pulse oximetry data such as saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) and pulse rate are vital signals for early diagnosis of heart disease. Therefore, various pulse oximeters have been developed continuously. However, some of the existing pulse oximeters are not equipped with communication capabilities, and consequently, the continuous monitoring of patient health is restricted. Moreover, even though certain oximeters have been built as network models, they focus on exchanging only pulse oximetry data, and they do not provide sufficient device management functions. In this paper, we propose an advanced pulse oximetry system for remote monitoring and management. The system consists of a networked pulse oximeter and a personal monitoring server. The proposed pulse oximeter measures a patient’s pulse oximetry data and transmits the data to the personal monitoring server. The personal monitoring server then analyzes the received data and displays the results to the patient. Furthermore, for device management purposes, operational errors that occur in the pulse oximeter are reported to the personal monitoring server, and the system configurations of the pulse oximeter, such as thresholds and measurement targets, are modified by the server. We verify that the proposed pulse oximetry system operates efficiently and that it is appropriate for monitoring and managing a pulse oximeter in real time.

Background Pulse oximetry is considered a standard of care in both the operating room and the postanesthetic care unit, and it is widely used in all critical care settings. Pulse oximeters may fail to provide valid pulse oximetry data in various situations that produce low signal-to-noise ratio. Motion artifact is a common cause of oximeter failure and loss of accuracy. This study compares the accuracy and data dropout rates of three current pulse oximeters during standardized motion in healthy volunteers. Methods Ten healthy volunteers were monitored by three different pulse oximeters: Nellcor N-200, Nellcor N-3000, and Masimo SET (prototype). Sensors were placed on digits 2, 3, and 4 of the test hand, which was strapped to a mechanical motion table. The opposite hand was used as a stationary control and was monitored with the same pulse oximeters and an arterial cannula. Arterial oxygen saturation rate varied from 100% to 75% by changing the inspired oxygen concentration. While pulse oximetry was both constant and changing, the oximeter sensors were connected before and during motion. Oximeter errors and dropout rates were digitally recorded continuously during each experiment. Results If the oximeter was functioning before motion began, the following are the percentages of time when the instrument displayed a pulse oximetry value within 7% of control: N-200 = 76%, N-3000 = 87%, and Masimo = 99%. When the oximeter sensor was connected after the beginning of motion, the values were N-200 = 68%, N-3000 = 47%, and Masimo = 97%. If the alarm threshold was chosen as pulse oximetry less than 90%, then the positive predictive values (true alarms/ total alarms) are N-200 = 73%, N-3000 = 81%, and Masimo = 100%. In general, N-200 had the greatest pulse oximetry errors and N-3000 had the highest dropout rates. Conclusions The mechanical motions used in this study significantly affected oximeter function, particularly when the sensors were connected during motion, which requires signal acquisition during motion. The error and dropout rate performance of the Masimo was superior to that of the other two instruments during all test conditions. Masimo uses a new paradigm for oximeter signal processing, which appears to represent a significant advance in low signal-to-noise performance.

Abstract Background: Pulse oximetry has become an essential tool in clinical practice. With patient self-management becoming more prevalent, pulse oximetry self-monitoring has the potential to become common practice in the near future. This study sought to compare the accuracy of two pulse oximeters, a high-quality standard pulse oximeter and an inexpensive pocket pulse oximeter, and to compare both devices with arterial blood co-oximetry oxygen saturation. Methods: A total of 95 patients (35.8% women; mean [±SD] age 63.1 ± 13.9 years; mean arterial pressure was 92 ± 12.0 mmHg; mean axillar temperature 36.3 ± 0.4°C) presenting to our hospital for blood gas analysis was evaluated. The Bland-Altman technique was performed to calculate bias and precision, as well as agreement limits. Student's t test was performed. Results: Standard oximeter presented 1.84% bias and a precision error of 1.80%. Pocket oximeter presented a bias of 1.85% and a precision error of 2.21%. Agreement limits were −1.69% to 5.37% (standard oximeter) and −2.48% to 6.18% (pocket oximeter). Conclusion: Both oximeters presented bias, which was expected given previous research. The pocket oximeter was less precise but had agreement limits that were comparable with current evidence. Pocket oximeters can be powerful allies in clinical monitoring of patients based on a self-monitoring/efficacy strategy.

Oxygen saturation in arterial blood (SaO2) provides information about the performance of the respiratory system. Non-invasive measurement of SaO2 by commercial pulse oximeters (SpO2) make use of photoplethysmographic pulses in the red and infrared regions and utilizes the different spectra of light absorption by oxygenated and de-oxygenated hemoglobin. Because light scattering and optical path-lengths differ between the two wavelengths, commercial pulse oximeters require empirical calibration which is based on SaO2 measurement in extracted arterial blood. They are still prone to error, because the path-lengths difference between the two wavelengths varies among different subjects. We have developed modified pulse oximetry, which makes use of two nearby infrared wavelengths that have relatively similar scattering constants and path-lengths and does not require an invasive calibration step. In measurements performed on adults during breath holding, the two-infrared pulse oximeter and a commercial pulse oximeter showed similar changes in SpO2. The two pulse oximeters showed similar accuracy when compared to SaO2 measurement in extracted arterial blood (the gold standard) performed in intensive care units on newborns and children with an arterial line. Errors in SpO2 because of variability in path-lengths difference between the two wavelengths are expected to be smaller in the two-infrared pulse oximeter.

Pulse oximetry can be a useful tool for professional school nurses who daily assess students with a variety of health issues and injuries. Pulse oximeters are now smaller and more affordable and, therefore, an option for school districts to purchase. Before implementing this new tool into their practice, school nurses must have an understanding of how pulse oximeters work and how they measure the oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin. A review of the literature will guide a nurse in developing clinical guidelines for practice and facilitating competency in using a pulse oximeter with the ultimate goal of improving student health assessments.

AbstractObjective:Infants with single ventricle physiology have arterial oxygen saturations between 75 and 85%. Home monitoring with daily pulse oximetry is associated with improved interstage survival. They are typically sent home with expensive, bulky, hospital-grade pulse oximeters. This study evaluates the accuracy of both the currently used Masimo LNCS and a relatively inexpensive, portable, and equipped with Bluetooth technology study device, by comparing with the gold standard co-oximeter.Design:Prospective, observational study.Setting:Single institution, paediatric cardiac critical care unit, and neonatal ICU.Interventions:none.Patients:Twenty-four infants under 12 months of age with baseline oxygen saturation less than 90% due to cyanotic CHD.Measurements and Results:Pulse oximetry with WristOx2 3150 with infant sensors 8008 J (study device) and Masimo LCNS saturation sensor connected to a Philips monitor (hospital device) were measured simultaneously and compared to arterial oxy-haemoglobin saturation measured by co-oximetry. Statistical analysis evaluated the performances of each and compared to co-oximetry with Schuirmann’s TOST equivalence tests, with equivalence defined as an absolute difference of 5% saturation or less. Neither the study nor the hospital device met the predefined standard for equivalence when compared with co-oximetry. The study device reading was on average 4.0% higher than the co-oximeter, failing to show statistical equivalence (p = 0.16). The hospital device was 7.4% higher than the co-oximeter and also did not meet the predefined standard for equivalence (p = 0.97).Conclusion:Both devices tended to overestimate oxygen saturation in this patient population when compared to the gold standard, co-oximetry. The study device is at least as accurate as the hospital device and offers the advantage of being more portable with Bluetooth technology that allows reliable, efficient data transmission. Currently FDA-approved, smaller portable pulse oximeters can be considered for use in home monitoring programmes.

AbstractIntroduction:Pulse-oximetry has proven clinical value in Emergency Departments and Intensive Care Units. In the prehospital environment, oxygen is given routinely in many situations. It was hypothesized that the use of pulse oximeters in the prehospital setting would provide a measurable cost-benefit by reducing the amount of oxygen used.Methods:This was a prospective study conducted at 12 ambulance stations (average transport times >20 minutes). Standard care protocols and paramedic assessments were used to determine which patients received oxygen and the initial flow rate used. Pulse-oximetry measurements (oxygen-saturation measured by pulse oximetry) were then taken. If oxygen-saturation measured by pulse oximetry fell below 92% or rose above 96% (except in patients with chest pain), oxygen (O2) flow rates were adjusted. Costs of oxygen use were calculated: volume that would have been used based on initial flow rate; and volume actually used based on actual flow rates and transport time.Methods:A total of 1,907 patients were recruited. Oximetry and complete data were obtained on 1,787 (94%). Of these, 1,329 (74%) received O2 by standard protocol: 389 (27.5%) had the O2 flow decreased; 52 had it discontinued. Eighty-seven patients (6%) not requiring O2 standard protocol were hypoxemic (oxygen-saturation measured by pulse oximetry < 92%) by oximetry, and 71 patients (5%) receiving oxygen required flow rate increases. Overall, O2 consumption was reduced by 26% resulting in a cost-savings of $0.20 / patient. Prehospital pulse-oximetry allows unncessary or excessive oxygen therapy to be avoided in up to 55% of patients transported by ambulance and can help to identify suboptimally oxygenated patients (11%).Conclusion:Rationalizing the O2 administration using pulse-oximetry reduced O2 consumption. Other health care savings likely would result from a reduced incidence of suboptimal oxygenation. Oxygen cost-saving justifies oximeter purchase for each ambulance annually where patient volume exceeds 1,750, less frequently for lower call volumes, or in those services where the mean transport time is less than the 23 minute average noted in this study.

The re-use of pulse oximeter probes presents the possibility of between-patient contamination. Use of a disposable polyethylene cover may reduce this risk. In a controlled, prospective study we examined the effect of such a cover on the accuracy of pulse oximetry. Each of ten volunteer subjects was monitored simultaneously by two identical Nellcor pulse oximeters, one with a plastic cover and the other, without a cover, used as a control. The pulse oximetry (SpO 2 ) reading for each probe was recorded while subjects breathed 21% O 2 and again while they breathed 10% O 2. The probe cover was then swapped onto the other probe and the recordings were repeated. Ninety-five per cent limits of agreement in SpO 2 (mean difference in SpO 2 (1.95 x standard deviation of difference) between covered and non-covered probes were -0.6% to 0.6% while breathing 21% oxygen and -2.0% to 2.9% while breathing 10% oxygen. We conclude that a protective plastic sheath may induce a small error in pulse oximetry reading that is most marked during hypoxaemia. This error is unlikely to be of clinical significance.

Background Pulse oximeters have been reported to fail to record data in 1.12-2.50% of cases in which anesthesia records were handwritten. There is reason to believe that these may be underestimates. Computerized anesthesia records may provide insight into the true incidence of pulse oximetry data failures and factors that are associated with such failures. Methods The current study reviewed case files of 9,203 computerized anesthesia records. Pulse oximetry data failure was defined as the presence of at least one continuous gap in data > or = 10 min in duration in a case. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of pulse oximetry data failure, and a modified case-control method was used to determine whether extremes of blood pressure and hypothermia during the procedure were associated with pulse oximetry data failure. Results The overall incidence of cases that had at least one continuous gap of > or = 10 min in pulse oximetry data was 9.18%. The independent preoperative predictors of pulse oximetry data failure were ASA physical status 3,4, or 5 and orthopedic, vascular, and cardiac surgery. Intraoperative hypothermia, hypotension, hypertension, and duration of procedure were also independent risk factors for pulse oximetry data failure. Conclusions Pulse oximetry data failure rates based on review of computerized records were markedly greater than those previously reported. Physical status, type of surgery, and intraoperative variables were risk factors for pulse oximetry data failure. Regulations and expectations regarding pulse oximetry monitoring should reflect the limitations of the technology.

Context:Pulse oximetry has become mobile with the use of smartphone and Bluetooth wireless technology. This technology offers many benefits but has not been extensively studied. There is a need to further validate its clinimetric properties for health professionals to provide proper guidance to patients.Objective:This investigation assessed the concurrent validity of the iSpO2pulse oximeter against a traditional pulse oximeter in measuring short-term resting blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate.Design:Observational study of reliability.Setting:University kinesiology laboratory.Participants:Thirty healthy, recre-ationally active adults (18 men, 12 women; mean age = 25.7 ± 5.46 years, mean height = 170.3cm ± 9.51, mean body mass = 76.4 kg ± 19.33).Intervention:Resting measurement of SpO2and pulse rate using the iSpO2pulse oximeter with the iPad Mini and a traditional pulse oximeter with Bluetooth.Main Outcome Measure:Resting SpO2and pulse rate were concurrently measured over 5 min.Results:The concurrent validity between the iSpO2and traditional pulse oximeter was moderate for measuring SpO2, intraclass correlation coeffcient (ICC)(3, 1) = .73,SEM= 0.70%, and good for pulse rate, ICC(3, 1) = .97,SEM= 1.74 beats per minute (bpm). The minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval for both instruments suggests that there may be 1.94% disagreement for SpO2and 4.82 bpm disagreement between pulse oximetry methods. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for measuring SpO2suggests that the iSpO2and traditional pulse oximeters may vary -0.28 ± 1.98%, or approximately 2%. The 95% LoA for measuring pulse rate suggests that the iSpO2and traditional pulse oximeter may vary 1.74 ± 4.98 bpm, potentially upward of 6 bpm. On the basis of the results of the LoA, it appears that there may be a slight systematic bias between the two devices, with the traditional pulse oximeter producing higher pulse rates than the iSpO2.Conclusion:The findings suggest that both instruments may be beneficial for indirect short-term measurements of resting SpO2and pulse rate.