| Title |
Respiratory variations in the photoplethysmographic waveform amplitude depend on type of pulse oximetry device
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-015-9720-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars Øivind Høiseth, Ingrid Elise Hoff, Ove Andreas Hagen, Knut Arvid Kirkebøen, Svein Aslak Landsverk |
| Abstract |
Respiratory variations in the photoplethysmographic waveform amplitude predict fluid responsiveness under certain conditions. Processing of the photoplethysmographic signal may vary between different devices, and may affect respiratory amplitude variations calculated by the standard formula. The aim of the present analysis was to explore agreement between respiratory amplitude variations calculated using photoplethysmographic waveforms available from two different pulse oximeters. Analysis of registrations before and after fluid loads performed before and after open-heart surgery (aortic valve replacement and/or coronary artery bypass grafting) with patients on controlled mechanical ventilation. Photoplethysmographic (Nellcor and Masimo pulse oximeters) and arterial pressure waveforms were recorded. Amplitude variations induced by ventilation were calculated and averaged over ten respiratory cycles. Agreements for absolute values are presented in scatterplots (with least median square regression through the origin, LMSO) and Bland-Altman plots. Agreement for trending presented in a four-quadrant plot. Agreement between respiratory photoplethysmographic amplitude variations from the two pulse oximeters was poor with LMSO ΔPOPNellc = 1.5 × ΔPOPMas and bias ± limits of agreement 7.4 ± 23 %. Concordance rate with a fluid load was 91 %. Agreement between respiratory variations in the photoplethysmographic waveform amplitude calculated from the available signals output by two different pulse oximeters was poor, both evaluated by LMSO and Bland-Altman plot. Respiratory amplitude variations from the available signals output by these two pulse oximeters are not interchangeable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 24% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,414,796
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#498
of 672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,836
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.