Comparación de oxímetros para detección de cardiopatías congénitas críticas.

Arch Cardiol Mex. 2019;89(2):172-180

Authors: Peña-Juarez RA, Chávez-Saenz JA, García-Canales A, Medina-Andrade MA, Martínez-González MT, Gutiérrez-Cobián L, Mendoza-Silva DA, Valerio-Carballo CA, Gallardo-Meza AF

Introduction and objectives: In some centers the pulse oximetry is not performed with the justification of lack of the adequate oximeter. We compared the effectiveness of two brands of oximeters to perform it.
Methods: In neonates a term of the joint housing service of a Hospital General de Occidente in Zapopan Jalisco Mexico from May-November 2018, an examination of the characteristics of the American Academy of Pediatrics with both oximeters (ChoiceMMed® and Masimo SET®) was carried out, comparing the detection of critical congenital heart disease (CCC), time of intake and false positives.
Results: In each group 1,022 patients were analyzed; with the Masimo SET® oximeter 83 positive tests were obtained (8.12%), of which 22 cases had some heart disease (26.5%), which represents a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 93.9%, positive predictive value of 26.5% and negative predictive value of 100% (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.6-0.8). With the ChoiceMMed® oximeter, 168 positive tests were obtained (16.4%), of which 22 cases had some heart disease (13.09%), with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 13.09% and negative predictive value 100% (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.8-0.92). Regarding the time to perform the cardiac sieve, the mean in minutes of the Masimo SET® oximeter was 5.38 and the ChoiceMMed® oximeter was 9.7 minutes.
Conclusions: The ChoiceMMed® oximeter contains a large number of false positives and a greater number of echocardiograms and comparatively longer cardiac screen printing with Masimo SET®, however, both with a negative predictive value of 100% eliminating such excuses.

PMID: 31314010 [PubMed – in process]

Source link