Pulse oximetry and high-dose vasopressors: A comparison between forehead reflectance and finger transmission sensors
Intensive Care Medicine, ISSN: 1432-1238, Vol: 38, Issue: 10, Page: 1718-1722
2012
- 31Citations
- 75Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations31
- Citation Indexes31
- 31
- CrossRef15
- Captures75
- Readers75
- 75
Article Description
Purpose: Pulse oximetry (SpO) measured at finger site via transmission mode may fail in situations of hypoperfusion. Forehead sensors using reflectance technology might be useful in these circumstances. We hypothesized that reflectance SpO would be more accurate than finger SpO in patients with severe shock. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in an intensive care unit of a university hospital of patients in shock who were treated with high norepinephrine and/or epinephrine doses (≥0.1 μ.g kg min). When blood gas determinations were requested, forehead SpO and finger SpO values were simultaneous recorded. Agreement between SpO measurements with arterial saturation (SaO), obtained by blood analysis with a co-oximeter, was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The number of outliers, defined by the formula SaO - SpO < ±3 %, indicated the proportion of measurements considered to be clinically unacceptable. Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled in the study. With the forehead sensor no reading failure occurred, and 140 paired data sets (forehead SpO vs. SaO) were obtained. Bias and precision were + 1.0 and +2.5 %, respectively, and the limits of agreement ranged from -4.0 to 6.0 %. The finger sensor failed to give a value in four cases, thus providing 136 paired data sets (finger SpO vs. SaO) for analysis. Bias and precision were +1.4 and +4.8 %, respectively, and the limits of agreement ranged from -8.0 to 10.9 %. There were 21 (15 %) outliers for the forehead sensor and 43 (32 %) for the finger sensor (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Forehead SpO measurements were more accurate than finger SpO when compared with SaO in critically ill patients requiring high-dose vasopressor therapy and should therefore be the preferred method considered. © Copyright jointly held by Springer and ESICM 2012.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85027919896&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22868275; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s00134-012-2659-0
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know