Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Pub Date : 2025-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s10877-025-01323-w

Lorenna Moreira, Edgard Engelman, Isabel Estruch-Pons, Maelle Parvais, Alexandre Lecucq, Brenda Martens, Pierre Pandin

{"title":"Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Lorenna Moreira, Edgard Engelman, Isabel Estruch-Pons, Maelle Parvais, Alexandre Lecucq, Brenda Martens, Pierre Pandin","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01323-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Haemoglobin measurement is an essential parameter for quantifying anaemia and often used for guiding transfusion decisions. Conventional methods require blood sampling and are invasive. Results are intermittent, discontinuous and obtained after a reasonable acquisition time. Hemoglobinemia by pulsed co-oximetry is non-invasive, immediate and offers the advantage of continuous monitoring. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of pulsed co-oximetry compared with reference biological determinations in perioperative management.Methods: The review was registered in PROSPERO and performed according to the PRISMA statement. Searches in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were performed from January 2000 to February 2024 for studies comparing non-invasive haemoglobin measurement with invasive methods. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias. For data analysis, Review Manager 5.4.1 software was employed, using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity analysis were performed in order to assess the influence of site of blood sampling (arterial or venous), revision model reference of the Masimo finger sensor, the geographical location of the study centre, the risk of bias classification, the population type and the type of study.Results: The meta-analysis included 36 studies involving 1888 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference between the non-invasive and invasive methods of 0.13 g.dL-1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10- 0.36) (P-value > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods. There was a very good homogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%). Trending analysis was considered acceptable in a majority of the studies.Conclusion: The results obtained support the reliability of pulsed co-oximetry. Considering the potential benefits of this parameter, it seems rational to integrate this technology perioperatively to guide standard clinical practices for optimizing the management of surgical patients.","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01323-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Haemoglobin measurement is an essential parameter for quantifying anaemia and often used for guiding transfusion decisions. Conventional methods require blood sampling and are invasive. Results are intermittent, discontinuous and obtained after a reasonable acquisition time. Hemoglobinemia by pulsed co-oximetry is non-invasive, immediate and offers the advantage of continuous monitoring. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of pulsed co-oximetry compared with reference biological determinations in perioperative management.

Methods: The review was registered in PROSPERO and performed according to the PRISMA statement. Searches in Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were performed from January 2000 to February 2024 for studies comparing non-invasive haemoglobin measurement with invasive methods. The QUADAS-2 scale was used to assess the risk of bias. For data analysis, Review Manager 5.4.1 software was employed, using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity analysis were performed in order to assess the influence of site of blood sampling (arterial or venous), revision model reference of the Masimo finger sensor, the geographical location of the study centre, the risk of bias classification, the population type and the type of study.

Results: The meta-analysis included 36 studies involving 1888 patients. Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference between the non-invasive and invasive methods of 0.13 g.dL-1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10- 0.36) (P-value > 0.05). Sensitivity analyses showed no statistically significant difference between the two methods. There was a very good homogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%). Trending analysis was considered acceptable in a majority of the studies.

Conclusion: The results obtained support the reliability of pulsed co-oximetry. Considering the potential benefits of this parameter, it seems rational to integrate this technology perioperatively to guide standard clinical practices for optimizing the management of surgical patients.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无创与生物血液测定血红蛋白血症围手术期管理：系统回顾与荟萃分析。

血红蛋白测量是定量贫血的重要参数，常用于指导输血决策。传统的方法需要采血，而且是侵入性的。结果是断断续续的，不连续的，在合理的采集时间后获得。脉冲共氧法检测血红蛋白血症无创、即时且具有连续监测的优点。本系统综述的目的是评估脉冲共血氧测定与参考生物测定在围手术期管理中的诊断准确性。方法：在PROSPERO上注册，并按照PRISMA声明进行审查。从2000年1月到2024年2月，检索Pubmed、Cochrane Library和Scopus数据库，比较非侵入性血红蛋白测量和侵入性血红蛋白测量的研究。采用QUADAS-2量表评估偏倚风险。数据分析采用Review Manager 5.4.1软件，采用方差逆法和随机效应模型计算均值差（MD）和95%置信区间。进行敏感性分析，以评估采血地点（动脉或静脉）、Masimo手指传感器修正模型参考、研究中心的地理位置、偏倚分类风险、人群类型和研究类型的影响。结果：meta分析包括36项研究，涉及1888例患者。meta分析显示，无创和有创方法的平均差异为0.13 g.dL-1(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.10 ~ 0.36) （p值> 0.05）。敏感性分析显示两种方法间无统计学差异。研究间有很好的同质性（I2 = 0%）。趋势分析在大多数研究中被认为是可以接受的。结论：所得结果支持脉冲共氧仪的可靠性。考虑到该参数的潜在益处，围手术期整合该技术来指导规范的临床实践以优化手术患者的管理似乎是合理的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing ANESTHESIOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

13.60%

发文量

144

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.