Suppr超能文献

RAD-57 脉冲 CO- 氧合仪与标准实验室碳氧血红蛋白测量的性能比较。

Performance of the RAD-57 pulse CO-oximeter compared with standard laboratory carboxyhemoglobin measurement.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;56(4):382-8. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.03.041. Epub 2010 Jun 3.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We assess agreement between carboxyhemoglobin levels measured by the Rad-57 signal extraction pulse CO-oximeter (RAD), a Food and Drug Administration-approved device for noninvasive bedside measurement, and standard laboratory arterial or venous measurement in a sample of emergency department (ED) patients with suspected carbon monoxide poisoning.

METHODS

The study was a cross-sectional cohort design using a convenience sample of adult and pediatric ED patients in a Level I trauma, burn, and hyperbaric oxygen referral center. Measurement of RAD carboxyhemoglobin was performed simultaneously with blood sampling for laboratory determination of carboxyhemoglobin level. The difference between the measures for each patient was calculated as laboratory carboxyhemoglobin minus carboxyhemoglobin from the carbon monoxide oximeter. The limits of agreement from a Bland-Altman analysis are calculated as the mean of the differences between methods ±1.96 SDs above and below the mean.

RESULTS

Median laboratory percentage carboxyhemoglobin level was 2.3% (interquartile range 1 to 8.5; range 0% to 38%). The mean difference between laboratory carboxyhemoglobin values and RAD values was 1.4% carboxyhemoglobin (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 2.6%). The limits of agreement of differences of measurement made with the 2 devices were -11.6% and 14.4% carboxyhemoglobin. This range exceeded the value of ±5% carboxyhemoglobin defined a priori as clinically acceptable. RAD correctly identified 11 of 23 patients with laboratory values greater than 15% carboxyhemoglobin (sensitivity 48%; 95% CI 27% to 69%). There was one case of a laboratory carboxyhemoglobin level less than 15%, in which the RAD device gave a result greater than 15% (specificity of RAD 96/97=99%; 95% CI 94% to 100%).

CONCLUSION

In the range of carboxyhemoglobin values measured in this sample, the level of agreement observed suggests RAD measurement may not be used interchangeably with standard laboratory measurement.

摘要

研究目的

我们评估了 Rad-57 信号提取脉冲 CO-oximeter(RAD)测量的碳氧血红蛋白水平与疑似一氧化碳中毒的急诊科(ED)患者样本中标准实验室动脉或静脉测量之间的一致性,RAD 是一种经美国食品和药物管理局批准的用于非侵入性床边测量的设备。

方法

这是一项使用便利抽样的成人和儿科 ED 患者的横断面队列设计,这些患者来自一级创伤、烧伤和高压氧转诊中心。同时进行 RAD 碳氧血红蛋白测量和血液采样以确定实验室碳氧血红蛋白水平。每位患者的两种方法之间的差值计算为实验室碳氧血红蛋白减去一氧化碳血氧计的碳氧血红蛋白。Bland-Altman 分析的一致性界限是两种方法之间差异的平均值±1.96 个标准差(SDs),高于和低于平均值。

结果

实验室百分比碳氧血红蛋白中位数为 2.3%(四分位距 1 至 8.5;范围 0%至 38%)。实验室碳氧血红蛋白值与 RAD 值之间的平均差值为 1.4%碳氧血红蛋白(95%置信区间 [CI]为 0.2%至 2.6%)。两种设备测量差异的一致性界限为-11.6%和 14.4%碳氧血红蛋白。这个范围超过了先前定义为临床可接受的±5%碳氧血红蛋白的差值。RAD 正确识别了 23 名实验室值大于 15%碳氧血红蛋白的患者中的 11 名(敏感性 48%;95%CI 27%至 69%)。有 1 例实验室碳氧血红蛋白值小于 15%,RAD 设备的结果大于 15%(RAD 的特异性为 96/97=99%;95%CI 94%至 100%)。

结论

在本样本中测量的碳氧血红蛋白值范围内,观察到的一致性水平表明 RAD 测量可能不能与标准实验室测量互换使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验