4.5 Article

Comparison of NIRS, laser Doppler flowmetry, photoplethysmography, and pulse oximetry during vascular occlusion challenges

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 503-514

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/37/4/503

关键词

near infrared spectroscopy; laser Doppler flowmetry; photoplethysmography; pulse oximetry; noninvasive optical techniques; physiological monitoring; vascular occlusions

资金

  1. London NHS Trust under Barts Charity Grant [832/1716]
  2. Barts NHS Trust under Barts Charity Grant [832/1716]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring changes in blood volume, blood flow, and oxygenation in tissues is of vital importance in fields such as reconstructive surgery and trauma medicine. Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), laser Doppler (LDF) flowmetry, photoplethysmography (PPG), and pulse oximetry (PO) contribute to such fields due to their safe and noninvasive nature. However, the techniques have been rarely investigated simultaneously or altogether. The aim of this study was to investigate all the techniques simultaneously on healthy subjects during vascular occlusion challenges. Sensors were attached on the forearm (NIRS and LDF) and fingers (PPG and PO) of 19 healthy volunteers. Different degrees of vascular occlusion were induced by inflating a pressure cuff on the upper arm. The responses of tissue oxygenation index (NIRS), tissue haemoglobin index (NIRS), flux (LDF), perfusion index (PPG), and arterial oxygen saturation (PO) have been recorded and analyzed. Moreover, the optical densities were calculated from slow varying dc PPG, in order to distinguish changes in venous blood volumes. The indexes showed significant changes (p < 0.05) in almost all occlusions, either venous or over-systolic occlusions. However, differentiation between venous and arterial occlusion by LDF may be challenging and the perfusion index (PI) may not be adequate to indicate venous occlusions. Optical densities may be an additional tool to detect venous occlusions by PPG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据