Lorenna Moreira, Edgard Engelman, Isabel Estruch-Pons, Maelle Parvais, Alexandre Lecucq, Brenda Martens, Pierre Pandin
{"title":"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。","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":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Trending analysis was considered acceptable in a majority of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Trending analysis was considered acceptable in a majority of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Non-invasive vs biological blood determination of haemoglobinemia for perioperative management: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
