4.6 Article

Perfusion index as a reliable parameter of vasomotor disturbance in complex regional pain syndrome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 121, 期 5, 页码 1133-1137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.07.020

关键词

measurement techniques; plethysmography; sympathetic blockade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Discrepancy between a patient's subjective thermal symptoms and objective measured temperature value is common in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in clinical settings. For that reason, the diagnostic validity of a single temperature measurement method has been criticised. Several studies showed that the perfusion index (PI), which is derived from pulse oximetry, is a more sensitive and earlier indicator of sympathetic blockade than temperature measurement. Methods: Forty-six participants (CRPS group, n = 23; healthy control group, n = 23) were enrolled. CRPS patients with subjective sensation of coldness on the affected side were chosen for this study. Temperature and PI were measured at the affected and contralateral hands in the CRPS group, and right and left hands in the healthy control group. To evaluate each method's efficacy for detecting thermal symptoms, differences in the parameters (temperature: Delta T, PI: Delta PI) were compared with receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: Delta PI was significantly larger in the CRPS compared with the healthy control group (P = 0.002), but Delta T was not (P = 0.171). The accuracy of PI measurement for reflecting thermal symptoms was good (area under the curve for Delta PI: 0.873, P< 0.0001). The optimal cut off value of DPI was calculated as 0.50% with a sensitivity of 78.26%, whereas the sensitivity of DT using the conventional criterion of >= 1 degrees C was only 34.78%. Conclusions: The accuracy of detection of subjective abnormal thermal sensations was superior for PI compared with the temperature measurement method. PI was a more sensitive measure for detecting vasomotor symptoms in CRPS compared with temperature.

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