Pulse oximetry

Pulse oximetry is a noninvasive method for monitoring a person's oxygen saturation (SO2). Though its reading of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) is not always identical to the more desirable reading of arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) from arterial blood gas analysis, the two are correlated well enough that the safe, convenient, noninvasive, inexpensive pulse oximetry method is valuable for measuring oxygen saturation in clinical use. Pulse oximetry is a noninvasive method for monitoring a person's oxygen saturation (SO2). Though its reading of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) is not always identical to the more desirable reading of arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) from arterial blood gas analysis, the two are correlated well enough that the safe, convenient, noninvasive, inexpensive pulse oximetry method is valuable for measuring oxygen saturation in clinical use. In its most common (transmissive) application mode, a sensor device is placed on a thin part of the patient's body, usually a fingertip or earlobe, or in the case of an infant, across a foot. The device passes two wavelengths of light through the body part to a photodetector. It measures the changing absorbance at each of the wavelengths, allowing it to determine the absorbances due to the pulsing arterial blood alone, excluding venous blood, skin, bone, muscle, fat, and (in most cases) nail polish. Reflectance pulse oximetry is a less common alternative to transmissive pulse oximetry. This method does not require a thin section of the person's body and is therefore well suited to a universal application such as the feet, forehead, and chest, but it also has some limitations. Vasodilation and pooling of venous blood in the head due to compromised venous return to the heart can cause a combination of arterial and venous pulsations in the forehead region and lead to spurious SpO2 results. Such conditions occur while undergoing anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation or in patients in the Trendelenburg position. In 1935, Karl Matthes (German physician 1905–1962) developed the first 2-wavelength ear O2 saturation meter with red and green filters (later switched to red and infrared filters). His meter was the first device to measure O2 saturation. The original oximeter was made by Glenn Allan Millikan in the 1940s. In 1949 Wood added a pressure capsule to squeeze blood out of the ear so as to obtain an absolute O2 saturation value when blood was readmitted. The concept is similar to today's conventional pulse oximetry, but was difficult to implement because of unstable photocells and light sources; the method is not now used clinically. In 1964 Shaw assembled the first absolute reading ear oximeter by using eight wavelengths of light. Pulse oximetry was developed in 1972, by Takuo Aoyagi and Michio Kishi, bioengineers, at Nihon Kohden using the ratio of red to infrared light absorption of pulsating components at the measuring site. Susumu Nakajima, a surgeon, and his associates first tested the device in patients, reporting it in 1975. It was commercialized by Biox in 1980. By 1987, the standard of care for the administration of a general anesthetic in the U.S. included pulse oximetry. From the operating room, the use of pulse oximetry rapidly spread throughout the hospital, first to the recovery room, and then into the various intensive care units. Pulse oximetry was of particular value in the neonatal unit where the patients do not thrive with inadequate oxygenation, but too much oxygen and fluctuations in oxygen concentration can lead to vision impairment or blindness from retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Furthermore, obtaining an arterial blood gas from a neonatal patient is painful to the patient and a major cause of neonatal anemia. Motion artifact can be a significant limitation to pulse oximetry monitoring resulting in frequent false alarms and loss of data. The reason for this is that during motion and low peripheral perfusion, many pulse oximeters cannot distinguish between pulsating arterial blood and moving venous blood, leading to underestimation of oxygen saturation. Early studies of pulse oximetry performance during subject motion made clear the vulnerabilities of conventional pulse oximetry technologies to motion artifact. In 1995, Masimo introduced Signal Extraction Technology (SET) that could measure accurately during patient motion and low perfusion by separating the arterial signal from the venous and other signals. Since then, pulse oximetry manufacturers have developed new algorithms to reduce some false alarms during motion such as extending averaging times or freezing values on the screen, but they do not claim to measure changing conditions during motion and low perfusion. So, there are still important differences in performance of pulse oximeters during challenging conditions. Also in 1995, Masimo introduced perfusion index, quantifying the amplitude of the peripheral plethysmograph waveform. Perfusion index has been shown to help clinicians predict illness severity and early adverse respiratory outcomes in neonates, predict low superior vena cava flow in very low birth weight infants, provide an early indicator of sympathectomy after epidural anesthesia, and improve detection of critical congenital heart disease in newborns. Published papers have compared signal extraction technology to other pulse oximetry technologies and have demonstrated consistently favorable results for signal extraction technology. Signal extraction technology pulse oximetry performance has also been shown to translate into helping clinicians improve patient outcomes. In one study, retinopathy of prematurity (eye damage) was reduced by 58% in very low birth weight neonates at a center using signal extraction technology, while there was no decrease in retinopathy of prematurity at another center with the same clinicians using the same protocol but with non-signal extraction technology. Other studies have shown that signal extraction technology pulse oximetry results in fewer arterial blood gas measurements, faster oxygen weaning time, lower sensor utilization, and lower length of stay. The measure-through motion and low perfusion capabilities it has also allow it to be used in previously unmonitored areas such as the general floor, where false alarms have plagued conventional pulse oximetry. As evidence of this, a landmark study was published in 2010 showing clinicians using signal extraction technology pulse oximetry on the general floor were able to decrease rapid response team activations, ICU transfers, and ICU days.