0
Respiratory Care |

Pocket Pulse Oximetry Versus Standard Pulse Oximetry: Accuracy and Precision FREE TO VIEW

João Cordeiro da Costa, MD; Ana Roque, NP; Paula Faustino, NP; Ricardo Lima, MD; Filipa Viveiros, MD; Miguel Guimarães, MD
Author and Funding Information

Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia / Espinho, Gaia, Portugal


Chest. 2014;145(3_MeetingAbstracts):549A. doi:10.1378/chest.1836388
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

SESSION TITLE: Respiratory Support Posters

SESSION TYPE: Poster Presentations

PRESENTED ON: Saturday, March 22, 2014 at 01:15 PM - 02:15 PM

PURPOSE: Pulse oximetry is nowadays a disseminated technology available almost over the corner. “Pocket” pulse oximeters are now widely available and knowing its precision and accuracy is of great importance in clinical practice.

METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Inclusion criteria: Patients older than 18, performing blood gas analysis from 1 July to 31 August 2013 on Lung Function Laboratory of our Hospital; Exclusion criteria: patients undergoing home oxygen-therapy. A protocol was created in which all enrolled patients had SPO2 simultaneously measured by “pocket” (Riester Ri-Fox) and “standard” (Respironics 920M Plus, Nonin finger sensor) high quality pulse oximetry; blood gas analysis was performed with correction to temperature; blood pressure and cardiac frequency were measured to exclude important hypoperfusion. Statistical analysis: continuous variables were presented by means and standard deviations (normal distribution); T Test and Bland and Altman Technique were performed. Statistical significance was set to α<0.05. Data were collected using CDC EpiInfo version 7 and analyzed using IBM SPSS version 22.

RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (35.8% women); mean age was 63.1 years; mean arterial pressure was 92 mmHg (SD 12.0) and mean heart rate was 78 (SD 13.8). T test showed no statistical difference between pulse oximeters (mean difference [SPO2 Standard - SPO2 Pocket] = 0.01, SE 0.20, p=0.958). Both pocket and standard oximeters were statistically different from co-oximetry oxihemoglobin (p<0.001 CI 95% [-1.78 to -0.61] and p<0.001 CI 95% [-1.58 to -0.74] respectively) and from SaO2 (p<0.001 CI 95% [1.40 to 2.30] and p<0.001 CI 95% [1.49 to 2.19], respectively), although less than 2%.

CONCLUSIONS: Both pocket and standard high quality oximeter performed similarly and both were discordant of oxihemoglobin (lower than pulse oximetry) and SaO2 (higher than pulse oximetry). The mean differences were below 2%, so without great clinical significance.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Cheaper and affordable new pocket pulse oximeters can be of great value in clinical practice and in ambulatory patient monitoring.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: João Cordeiro da Costa, Ana Roque, Paula Faustino, Ricardo Lima, Filipa Viveiros, Miguel Guimarães

No Product/Research Disclosure Information


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543