Suppr超能文献

急诊患者脉搏血氧饱和度仪假阳性率。

False positive rate of carbon monoxide saturation by pulse oximetry of emergency department patients.

机构信息

Division of Hyperbaric Medicine, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT 84143, USA.

出版信息

Respir Care. 2013 Feb;58(2):232-40. doi: 10.4187/respcare.01744.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Symptoms of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning are non-specific. Diagnosis requires suspicion of exposure, confirmed by measuring ambient CO levels or carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). An FDA-approved pulse oximeter (Rad-57) can measure CO saturation (S(pCO)). The device accuracy has implications for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

From April 1 to August 15, 2008, study personnel measured S(pCO) and documented demographic factors at time of clinical blood draw, in a convenience sample of 1,363 subjects presenting to the emergency department at Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah. The technician then assayed COHb. COHb and S(pCO) values were compared by subject; false positive or negative values were defined as S(pCO) at least 3 percentage points greater or less than COHb level, reported by the manufacturer to be ± 1 SD in performance.

RESULTS

In 1,363 subjects, 613 (45%) were male, 1,141 (84%) were light-skinned, 14 in shock, 4 with CO poisoning, and 122 (9%) met the criteria for a false positive value (range 3-19 percentage points), while 247 (18%) met the criteria for a false negative value (-13 to -3 percentage points). Risks for a false positive S(pCO) reading included being female and having a lower perfusion index. Methemoglobin, body temperature, and blood pressure also appear to influence the S(pCO) accuracy. There was variability among monitors, possibly related to technician technique, as rotation of monitors among technicians was not enforced.

CONCLUSIONS

While the Rad-57 pulse oximeter functioned within the manufacturer's specifications, clinicians using the Rad-57 should expect some S(pCO) readings to be significantly higher or lower than COHb measurements, and should not use S(pCO) to direct triage or patient management. An elevated S(pCO) could broaden the diagnosis of CO poisoning in patients with non-specific symptoms. However, a negative S(pCO) level in patients suspected of having CO poisoning should never rule out CO poisoning, and should always be confirmed by COHb.

摘要

背景

一氧化碳(CO)中毒的症状是非特异性的。诊断需要怀疑暴露,并通过测量环境 CO 水平或碳氧血红蛋白(COHb)来确认。美国食品药品监督管理局批准的脉搏血氧仪(Rad-57)可以测量 CO 饱和度(S(pCO))。该设备的准确性对临床决策有影响。

方法

2008 年 4 月 1 日至 8 月 15 日,研究人员在犹他州默里市 Intermountain Medical Center 急诊科就诊的 1363 名患者中,在进行临床血液采集时测量了 S(pCO)并记录了人口统计学因素。然后,技术人员检测了 COHb。通过患者比较 COHb 和 S(pCO)值;假阳性或假阴性值定义为 S(pCO)比制造商报告的性能±1SD 至少高出或低出 3 个百分点,分别为±3%。

结果

在 1363 名患者中,613 名(45%)为男性,1141 名(84%)为浅色皮肤,14 名休克,4 名 CO 中毒,122 名(9%)符合假阳性值标准(范围 3-19%),而 247 名(18%)符合假阴性值标准(-13%至-3%)。S(pCO)假阳性读数的风险因素包括女性和较低的灌注指数。高铁血红蛋白、体温和血压似乎也会影响 S(pCO)的准确性。监测器之间存在差异,这可能与技术人员的技术有关,因为没有强制监测器在技术人员之间轮换。

结论

虽然 Rad-57 脉搏血氧仪在制造商的规格内运行,但使用 Rad-57 的临床医生应该预计一些 S(pCO)读数会明显高于或低于 COHb 测量值,并且不应该使用 S(pCO)来指导分诊或患者管理。在有非特异性症状的患者中,升高的 S(pCO)可能会扩大 CO 中毒的诊断。然而,怀疑有 CO 中毒的患者的 S(pCO)水平为阴性绝不应排除 CO 中毒,并且始终应通过 COHb 确认。

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