新型便携式质谱仪的响应时间研究。

P A Delaney, G M Barnas, C F Mackenzie
{"title":"新型便携式质谱仪的响应时间研究。","authors":"P A Delaney,&nbsp;G M Barnas,&nbsp;C F Mackenzie","doi":"10.1023/a:1007353818448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Mass spectrometers are frequently used by anesthesiologists perioperatively to monitor patients' respiratory function and levels of inhaled anesthetics. Due to size, complexity and expense, they are typically used in a time-sharing manner which degrades their performance. We assessed the accuracy of the Random Access Mass Spectrometer (RAMS), Marquette Electronics) which is small enough to be dedicated to a single patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the 10-90% rise times for O2, CO2, N2O and isoflurane for the RAMS with different catheter configurations to those of a MedSpect mass spectrometer (Allegheny International Medical Technology) operating under ideal conditions. For CO2 the lag of the RAMS relative to the MedSpect was also measured. Next, perioperative conditions were stimulated by ventilating anesthetized dogs with a variety of inhalatory gases and ventilatory parameters, and the interchangeability of the two devices was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When fitted with a catheter with minimal dead space the MedSpect had rise times of 0.11-0.12 sec while the RAMS had rise times of 0.07-0.12 sec and a delay of 0.19 sec compared to the MedSpect. The rise times and delay of the RAMS increased when using a larger catheter and water trap. Although there were statistically significant differences in some values for inhaled and end-tidal gases under simulated perioperative conditions, particularly at the higher frequencies, these differences were small and for most purposes not clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results demonstrate that the RAMS configured for clinical conditions performs nearly as well as the MedSpect under ideal conditions. The small differences between the two, confined almost entirely to their end-tidal CO2 values, could be due to differences in instrument calibration, by the larger sampling catheter commonly used in clinical settings, or by a combination of both factors. Therefore the RAMS is sufficiently accurate for clinical use and would alleviate problems associated with time-shared mass spectrometers.</p>","PeriodicalId":77199,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical monitoring","volume":"13 3","pages":"181-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1007353818448","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response time studies of a new, portable mass spectrometer.\",\"authors\":\"P A Delaney,&nbsp;G M Barnas,&nbsp;C F Mackenzie\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/a:1007353818448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Mass spectrometers are frequently used by anesthesiologists perioperatively to monitor patients' respiratory function and levels of inhaled anesthetics. Due to size, complexity and expense, they are typically used in a time-sharing manner which degrades their performance. We assessed the accuracy of the Random Access Mass Spectrometer (RAMS), Marquette Electronics) which is small enough to be dedicated to a single patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the 10-90% rise times for O2, CO2, N2O and isoflurane for the RAMS with different catheter configurations to those of a MedSpect mass spectrometer (Allegheny International Medical Technology) operating under ideal conditions. For CO2 the lag of the RAMS relative to the MedSpect was also measured. Next, perioperative conditions were stimulated by ventilating anesthetized dogs with a variety of inhalatory gases and ventilatory parameters, and the interchangeability of the two devices was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When fitted with a catheter with minimal dead space the MedSpect had rise times of 0.11-0.12 sec while the RAMS had rise times of 0.07-0.12 sec and a delay of 0.19 sec compared to the MedSpect. The rise times and delay of the RAMS increased when using a larger catheter and water trap. Although there were statistically significant differences in some values for inhaled and end-tidal gases under simulated perioperative conditions, particularly at the higher frequencies, these differences were small and for most purposes not clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results demonstrate that the RAMS configured for clinical conditions performs nearly as well as the MedSpect under ideal conditions. The small differences between the two, confined almost entirely to their end-tidal CO2 values, could be due to differences in instrument calibration, by the larger sampling catheter commonly used in clinical settings, or by a combination of both factors. Therefore the RAMS is sufficiently accurate for clinical use and would alleviate problems associated with time-shared mass spectrometers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical monitoring\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"181-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1007353818448\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical monitoring\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007353818448\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007353818448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:质谱仪是麻醉医师围手术期常用的监测患者呼吸功能和吸入麻醉剂水平的仪器。由于大小、复杂性和费用的原因,它们通常以分时方式使用,这降低了它们的性能。我们评估了随机存取质谱仪(RAMS),马奎特电子公司)的准确性,它小到足以用于单个患者。方法:将不同导管配置的RAMS与理想条件下运行的MedSpect质谱仪的O2、CO2、N2O和异氟烷的上升时间进行比较。对于CO2, ram相对于MedSpect的滞后也被测量。接下来,通过给麻醉犬使用不同的吸入气体和通气参数来刺激围手术期条件,并评估两种设备的互换性。结果:与MedSpect相比,当安装最小死区导管时,MedSpect的上升时间为0.11-0.12秒,而RAMS的上升时间为0.07-0.12秒,延迟时间为0.19秒。当使用较大的导管和疏水器时,RAMS的上升时间和延迟时间增加。虽然在模拟围手术期条件下吸入气体和潮末气体的某些值有统计学上的显著差异,特别是在较高频率下,但这些差异很小,对于大多数目的来说没有临床意义。结论:我们的研究结果表明,临床条件下配置的RAMS在理想条件下的表现几乎与MedSpect一样好。两者之间的微小差异,几乎完全局限于它们的潮汐末CO2值,可能是由于仪器校准的差异,临床环境中常用的较大的采样导管,或者是两种因素的结合。因此,RAMS对于临床使用是足够准确的,并且可以缓解与分时质谱相关的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response time studies of a new, portable mass spectrometer.

Objective: Mass spectrometers are frequently used by anesthesiologists perioperatively to monitor patients' respiratory function and levels of inhaled anesthetics. Due to size, complexity and expense, they are typically used in a time-sharing manner which degrades their performance. We assessed the accuracy of the Random Access Mass Spectrometer (RAMS), Marquette Electronics) which is small enough to be dedicated to a single patient.

Methods: We compared the 10-90% rise times for O2, CO2, N2O and isoflurane for the RAMS with different catheter configurations to those of a MedSpect mass spectrometer (Allegheny International Medical Technology) operating under ideal conditions. For CO2 the lag of the RAMS relative to the MedSpect was also measured. Next, perioperative conditions were stimulated by ventilating anesthetized dogs with a variety of inhalatory gases and ventilatory parameters, and the interchangeability of the two devices was assessed.

Results: When fitted with a catheter with minimal dead space the MedSpect had rise times of 0.11-0.12 sec while the RAMS had rise times of 0.07-0.12 sec and a delay of 0.19 sec compared to the MedSpect. The rise times and delay of the RAMS increased when using a larger catheter and water trap. Although there were statistically significant differences in some values for inhaled and end-tidal gases under simulated perioperative conditions, particularly at the higher frequencies, these differences were small and for most purposes not clinically significant.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the RAMS configured for clinical conditions performs nearly as well as the MedSpect under ideal conditions. The small differences between the two, confined almost entirely to their end-tidal CO2 values, could be due to differences in instrument calibration, by the larger sampling catheter commonly used in clinical settings, or by a combination of both factors. Therefore the RAMS is sufficiently accurate for clinical use and would alleviate problems associated with time-shared mass spectrometers.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信