Cargando…

Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters under clinical conditions, with arterial blood gas measurement (SaO(2)) as reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, validation study. SETTING: Intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring SaO(2)-monitoring. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harskamp, Ralf E, Bekker, Luuk, Himmelreich, Jelle C L, De Clercq, Lukas, Karregat, Evert P M, Sleeswijk, Mengalvio E, Lucassen, Wim A M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8423509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34489238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2021-000939
_version_ 1783749478145064960
author Harskamp, Ralf E
Bekker, Luuk
Himmelreich, Jelle C L
De Clercq, Lukas
Karregat, Evert P M
Sleeswijk, Mengalvio E
Lucassen, Wim A M
author_facet Harskamp, Ralf E
Bekker, Luuk
Himmelreich, Jelle C L
De Clercq, Lukas
Karregat, Evert P M
Sleeswijk, Mengalvio E
Lucassen, Wim A M
author_sort Harskamp, Ralf E
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters under clinical conditions, with arterial blood gas measurement (SaO(2)) as reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, validation study. SETTING: Intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring SaO(2)-monitoring. INTERVENTIONS: The studied oximeters are top-selling in Europe/USA (AFAC FS10D, AGPTEK FS10C, ANAPULSE ANP 100, Cocobear, Contec CMS50D1, HYLOGY MD-H37, Mommed YM101, PRCMISEMED F4PRO, PULOX PO-200 and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL). Directly after collection of a SaO(2) blood sample, we obtained pulse oximeter readings (SpO(2)). SpO(2)-readings were performed in rotating order, blinded for SaO(2) and completed <10 min after blood sample collection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Bias (SpO(2)–SaO(2)) mean, root mean square difference (A(RMS)), mean absolute error (MAE) and accuracy in identifying hypoxaemia (SaO(2) ≤90%). As a clinical index test, we included a hospital-grade SpO(2)-monitor (Philips). RESULTS: In 35 consecutive patients, we obtained 2258 SpO(2)-readings and 234 SaO(2)-samples. Mean bias ranged from −0.6 to −4.8. None of the pulse oximeters met A(RMS) ≤3%, the requirement set by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)-standards and required for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 501(k)-clearance. The MAE ranged from 2.3 to 5.1, and five out of ten pulse oximeters met the requirement of ≤3%. For hypoxaemia, negative predictive values were 98%–99%. Positive predictive values ranged from 11% to 30%. Highest accuracy (95% CI) was found for Contec CMS50D1; 91% (86–94) and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL; 90% (85–94). The hospital-grade SpO(2)-monitor had an A(RMS) of 3.0% and MAE of 1.9, and an accuracy of 95% (91%–97%). CONCLUSION: Top-selling, direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters can accurately rule out hypoxaemia, but do not meet ISO-standards required for FDA-clearance
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8423509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84235092021-09-08 Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients Harskamp, Ralf E Bekker, Luuk Himmelreich, Jelle C L De Clercq, Lukas Karregat, Evert P M Sleeswijk, Mengalvio E Lucassen, Wim A M BMJ Open Respir Res Respiratory Research OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters under clinical conditions, with arterial blood gas measurement (SaO(2)) as reference standard. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, validation study. SETTING: Intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients requiring SaO(2)-monitoring. INTERVENTIONS: The studied oximeters are top-selling in Europe/USA (AFAC FS10D, AGPTEK FS10C, ANAPULSE ANP 100, Cocobear, Contec CMS50D1, HYLOGY MD-H37, Mommed YM101, PRCMISEMED F4PRO, PULOX PO-200 and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL). Directly after collection of a SaO(2) blood sample, we obtained pulse oximeter readings (SpO(2)). SpO(2)-readings were performed in rotating order, blinded for SaO(2) and completed <10 min after blood sample collection. OUTCOME MEASURES: Bias (SpO(2)–SaO(2)) mean, root mean square difference (A(RMS)), mean absolute error (MAE) and accuracy in identifying hypoxaemia (SaO(2) ≤90%). As a clinical index test, we included a hospital-grade SpO(2)-monitor (Philips). RESULTS: In 35 consecutive patients, we obtained 2258 SpO(2)-readings and 234 SaO(2)-samples. Mean bias ranged from −0.6 to −4.8. None of the pulse oximeters met A(RMS) ≤3%, the requirement set by International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)-standards and required for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 501(k)-clearance. The MAE ranged from 2.3 to 5.1, and five out of ten pulse oximeters met the requirement of ≤3%. For hypoxaemia, negative predictive values were 98%–99%. Positive predictive values ranged from 11% to 30%. Highest accuracy (95% CI) was found for Contec CMS50D1; 91% (86–94) and Zacurate Pro Series 500 DL; 90% (85–94). The hospital-grade SpO(2)-monitor had an A(RMS) of 3.0% and MAE of 1.9, and an accuracy of 95% (91%–97%). CONCLUSION: Top-selling, direct-to-consumer pulse oximeters can accurately rule out hypoxaemia, but do not meet ISO-standards required for FDA-clearance BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8423509/ /pubmed/34489238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2021-000939 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Respiratory Research
Harskamp, Ralf E
Bekker, Luuk
Himmelreich, Jelle C L
De Clercq, Lukas
Karregat, Evert P M
Sleeswijk, Mengalvio E
Lucassen, Wim A M
Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title_full Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title_fullStr Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title_full_unstemmed Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title_short Performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
title_sort performance of popular pulse oximeters compared with simultaneous arterial oxygen saturation or clinical-grade pulse oximetry: a cross-sectional validation study in intensive care patients
topic Respiratory Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8423509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34489238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2021-000939
work_keys_str_mv AT harskampralfe performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT bekkerluuk performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT himmelreichjellecl performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT declercqlukas performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT karregatevertpm performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT sleeswijkmengalvioe performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients
AT lucassenwimam performanceofpopularpulseoximeterscomparedwithsimultaneousarterialoxygensaturationorclinicalgradepulseoximetryacrosssectionalvalidationstudyinintensivecarepatients