4.6 Article

Accuracy of pulse oximetry in detection of oxygen saturation in patients admitted to the intensive care unit of heart surgery: comparison of finger, toe, forehead and earlobe probes

期刊

BMC NURSING
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12912-018-0283-1

关键词

Pulse oximetry; Critical care; Accuracy

类别

资金

  1. KUMS [90099]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heart surgery patients are more at risk of poor peripheral perfusion, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurement is regular care for continuous analysis of blood oxygen saturation in these patients. With regard to controversial studies on accuracy of the current pulse oximetry probes and lack of data related to patients undergoing heart surgery, the present study was conducted to determine accuracy of pulse oximetry probes of finger, toe, forehead and earlobe in detection of oxygen saturation in patients admitted to intensive care units for coronary artery bypass surgery. Methods: In this clinical trial, 67 patients were recruited based on convenience sampling method among those admitted to intensive care units for coronary artery bypass surgery. The SpO2 value was measured using finger, toe, forehead and earlobe probes and then compared with the standard value of arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2). Data were entered into STATA-11 software and analyzed using descriptive, inferential and Bland-Altman statistical analyses. Results: Highest and lowest correlational mean values of SpO2 and SaO2 were related to finger and earlobe probes, respectively. The highest and lowest agreement of SpO2 and SaO2 were related to forehead and earlobe probes. Conclusion: The SpO2 of earlobe probes due to lesser mean difference, more limited confidence level and higher agreement ration with SaO2 resulted by arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis had higher accuracy. Thus, it is suggested to use earlobe probes in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for coronary artery bypass surgery.

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

4.6
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