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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |