常压模拟极端海拔深度缺氧时脉搏血氧测量心率和血氧饱和度的有效性。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-06-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0326674
Harald Vikne, Jon Arild Kjeserud, Willy Westgaard, Ruben Baalsrud Westlie, Jan Ivar Kåsin, Jon Ingulf Medbø, Terje Gjøvaag, Nils Henrik Holmedahl
{"title":"常压模拟极端海拔深度缺氧时脉搏血氧测量心率和血氧饱和度的有效性。","authors":"Harald Vikne, Jon Arild Kjeserud, Willy Westgaard, Ruben Baalsrud Westlie, Jan Ivar Kåsin, Jon Ingulf Medbø, Terje Gjøvaag, Nils Henrik Holmedahl","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0326674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Commercial pulse oximeters may not be well calibrated for oxygen saturations below 70%, conditions that may be met in high altitude aviation and mountaineering. We therefore examined the bias and variability of heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) of four different pulse oximeters (PO) at arterial blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) between 55 and 100%.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventeen healthy participants (age 33 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) yr) were exposed to controlled desaturation at rest by stepwise reduction of the oxygen fraction in the breathing air between 20.9 and 8%. Parallel measurements of HR (n = 383) and blood oxygen saturation (n = 304) from four pulse oximeters (RAD-97, PM100N, M7500 and Nell1-SR) and from reference instruments (by hemoximetry and electrocardiography (ECG)) were taken during the exposure. The validity was assessed in intervals of 55-70%, 70-85% and 85-100% SaO2 using the Bland-Altman method (bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA)) and the root mean square error for variability. The demarcation criteria for agreement between methods were ±6 percentage points O2Hb saturation and ±6 bpm HR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 85-100% SaO2 interval, all POs but the Nell1-SR were in agreement with the reference for O2 saturation. Only M7500 agreed with the reference for the 70-85% interval and none of the POs were in agreement with the reference for the 55-70% interval. The pulse oximeters and ECG were not in agreement for HR at neither the 55-70% nor the 85-100% interval but agreed at the 70-85% interval except the RAD-97. All pulse oximeters increased the bias or the variability for SpO2 significantly by reductions in oxygen saturation, while no systematic differences were found for HR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study shows that medically approved pulse oximeters are not in agreement with reference measurements of neither blood oxygen saturation nor HR at SaO2 levels below 70%, and their readings should therefore be interpreted cautiously during severe desaturation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 6","pages":"e0326674"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184948/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of pulse oximetry measures for heart rate and oxygen saturation during profound hypoxia in normobaric simulated extreme altitudes.\",\"authors\":\"Harald Vikne, Jon Arild Kjeserud, Willy Westgaard, Ruben Baalsrud Westlie, Jan Ivar Kåsin, Jon Ingulf Medbø, Terje Gjøvaag, Nils Henrik Holmedahl\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0326674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Commercial pulse oximeters may not be well calibrated for oxygen saturations below 70%, conditions that may be met in high altitude aviation and mountaineering. We therefore examined the bias and variability of heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) of four different pulse oximeters (PO) at arterial blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) between 55 and 100%.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventeen healthy participants (age 33 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) yr) were exposed to controlled desaturation at rest by stepwise reduction of the oxygen fraction in the breathing air between 20.9 and 8%. Parallel measurements of HR (n = 383) and blood oxygen saturation (n = 304) from four pulse oximeters (RAD-97, PM100N, M7500 and Nell1-SR) and from reference instruments (by hemoximetry and electrocardiography (ECG)) were taken during the exposure. The validity was assessed in intervals of 55-70%, 70-85% and 85-100% SaO2 using the Bland-Altman method (bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA)) and the root mean square error for variability. The demarcation criteria for agreement between methods were ±6 percentage points O2Hb saturation and ±6 bpm HR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 85-100% SaO2 interval, all POs but the Nell1-SR were in agreement with the reference for O2 saturation. Only M7500 agreed with the reference for the 70-85% interval and none of the POs were in agreement with the reference for the 55-70% interval. The pulse oximeters and ECG were not in agreement for HR at neither the 55-70% nor the 85-100% interval but agreed at the 70-85% interval except the RAD-97. All pulse oximeters increased the bias or the variability for SpO2 significantly by reductions in oxygen saturation, while no systematic differences were found for HR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study shows that medically approved pulse oximeters are not in agreement with reference measurements of neither blood oxygen saturation nor HR at SaO2 levels below 70%, and their readings should therefore be interpreted cautiously during severe desaturation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 6\",\"pages\":\"e0326674\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184948/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326674\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326674","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:商用脉搏血氧仪可能无法很好地校准氧饱和度低于70%的条件,可能在高空航空和登山中满足。因此,我们研究了在动脉血氧饱和度(SaO2)在55 - 100%之间时,四种不同脉搏血氧仪(PO)的心率(HR)和血氧饱和度(SpO2)的偏差和变异性。方法:17名健康受试者(年龄33±11岁(mean±standard deviation (SD)) yr),通过逐步降低呼吸空气中的氧含量(20.9 ~ 8%),在静止状态下进行控制去饱和。在暴露期间,通过四种脉搏血氧仪(RAD-97、PM100N、M7500和Nell1-SR)和参考仪器(通过血液测定仪和心电图)平行测量HR (n = 383)和血氧饱和度(n = 304)。采用Bland-Altman方法(偏倚和95%一致性限(LoA))和变异的均方根误差在55-70%、70-85%和85-100% SaO2区间评估效度。两种方法一致的划分标准为±6个百分点的O2Hb饱和度和±6 bpm HR。结果:在85 ~ 100% SaO2区间,除Nell1-SR外,其余po值均与参考值一致。只有M7500与70-85%区间的参考值一致,没有一个po与55-70%区间的参考值一致。除RAD-97外,脉搏血氧仪和心电图在55-70%和85-100%之间的HR值均不一致,但在70-85%之间的HR值一致。所有脉搏血氧仪通过降低氧饱和度显著增加SpO2的偏倚或变异性,而HR没有发现系统性差异。结论:该研究表明,医学上认可的脉搏血氧仪在SaO2水平低于70%时与血氧饱和度和HR的参考测量值不一致,因此在严重去饱和时应谨慎解读其读数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Validity of pulse oximetry measures for heart rate and oxygen saturation during profound hypoxia in normobaric simulated extreme altitudes.

Validity of pulse oximetry measures for heart rate and oxygen saturation during profound hypoxia in normobaric simulated extreme altitudes.

Validity of pulse oximetry measures for heart rate and oxygen saturation during profound hypoxia in normobaric simulated extreme altitudes.

Validity of pulse oximetry measures for heart rate and oxygen saturation during profound hypoxia in normobaric simulated extreme altitudes.

Introduction: Commercial pulse oximeters may not be well calibrated for oxygen saturations below 70%, conditions that may be met in high altitude aviation and mountaineering. We therefore examined the bias and variability of heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) of four different pulse oximeters (PO) at arterial blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) between 55 and 100%.

Methods: Seventeen healthy participants (age 33 ± 11 (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) yr) were exposed to controlled desaturation at rest by stepwise reduction of the oxygen fraction in the breathing air between 20.9 and 8%. Parallel measurements of HR (n = 383) and blood oxygen saturation (n = 304) from four pulse oximeters (RAD-97, PM100N, M7500 and Nell1-SR) and from reference instruments (by hemoximetry and electrocardiography (ECG)) were taken during the exposure. The validity was assessed in intervals of 55-70%, 70-85% and 85-100% SaO2 using the Bland-Altman method (bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA)) and the root mean square error for variability. The demarcation criteria for agreement between methods were ±6 percentage points O2Hb saturation and ±6 bpm HR.

Results: At the 85-100% SaO2 interval, all POs but the Nell1-SR were in agreement with the reference for O2 saturation. Only M7500 agreed with the reference for the 70-85% interval and none of the POs were in agreement with the reference for the 55-70% interval. The pulse oximeters and ECG were not in agreement for HR at neither the 55-70% nor the 85-100% interval but agreed at the 70-85% interval except the RAD-97. All pulse oximeters increased the bias or the variability for SpO2 significantly by reductions in oxygen saturation, while no systematic differences were found for HR.

Conclusion: The study shows that medically approved pulse oximeters are not in agreement with reference measurements of neither blood oxygen saturation nor HR at SaO2 levels below 70%, and their readings should therefore be interpreted cautiously during severe desaturation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信