Respiratory failure & ventilation
Agreement between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation measurement in critical care patients during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Authors' conclusion
In our population, agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 is acceptable.
Study context
- Population
- Consecutive ICU patients, October 15, 2020, to March 4, 20211,539 measurements
- Participants
- 105 patients
- Exposure
- SpO2 vs saturation (SaO2) in COVID-19 positive and negative patients
- COVID-19 positiven = 66
- COVID-19 negativen = 39reference
- Outcome
- Agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 (Lin concordance coefficient; Bland and Altman method)
Methodological detailsmulticentre, prospective
- Multicentre
- Prospective
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 (Lin coefficient)
COVID-19 positive
0.61
Lin coefficient · interval 0.57–0.64
COVID-19 negative
0.53
Lin coefficient · interval 0.45–0.60
- Overall Lin coefficient
- 0.65 [0.63; 0.68]
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | COVID-19 positive | COVID-19 negative |
|---|---|---|
| Systematic bias (SpO2-SaO2 difference) | 0.80 (interval - 0.7; 2.5) | 0.90 (interval - 0.3; 2.0) |
- Systematic bias (SpO2-SaO2 difference) — Overall systematic bias
- 0.80 [- 0.6; 2.4]
- Systematic bias (SpO2-SaO2 difference) — Overall median SpO2
- 97 [96-99]
- Systematic bias (SpO2-SaO2 difference) — Overall median SaO2
- 94 [92-96]
Factors associated with SpO2-SaO2 difference
- PaO2/FiO2 ratio and need for mechanical ventilation independently associated
- Generalised estimating equation
Original publication
Agreement between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation measurement in critical care patients during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 21 January 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →