Dynamic Changes of Perfusion Index During Hypoxemia and Hypercapnia in Outdoor Experiments

Horáková, Lenka; Kudrna, Petr; Roubík, Karel

doi:10.1109/ehb52898.2021.9657719

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, during all breathing experiments a maximum effort was made to prevent this effect: the subjects had their hand placed in a warmed glove and the perfusion of the fingers was monitored with use of perfusion index [24]. As there was no significant decrease in the perfusion index observed throughout the breathing experiments [33], the authors speculate that the low perfusion state was not a crucial limiting factor for performance of the pulse oximeters and hence an important source of the incongruity in the displayed SpO 2 values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulse Oximeter Performance during Rapid Desaturation

Horáková

Roubík

2022

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reliability of pulse oximetry is crucial, especially in cases of rapid changes in body oxygenation. In order to evaluate the performance of pulse oximeters during rapidly developing short periods of concurrent hypoxemia and hypercapnia, 13 healthy volunteers underwent 3 breathing phases during outdoor experiments (39 phases in total), monitored simultaneously by five different pulse oximeters. A significant incongruity in values displayed by the tested pulse oximeters was observed, even when the accuracy declared by the manufacturers were considered. In 28.2% of breathing phases, the five used devices did not show any congruent values. The longest uninterrupted congruent period formed 74.4% of total recorded time. Moreover, the congruent periods were rarely observed during the critical desaturation phase of the experiment. The time difference between the moments when the first and the last pulse oximeter showed the typical study endpoint values of SpO2 85% and 75% was 32.1 ± 23.6 s and 24.7 ± 19.3 s, respectively. These results suggest that SpO2 might not be a reliable parameter as a study endpoint, or more importantly as a safety limit in outdoor experiments. In the design of future studies, more parameters and continuous clinical assessment should be included.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%