This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gehring, H. Articles by Dibbelt, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gehring, H. Articles by Dibbelt, L.

---

ARTICLE

Hemoximetry as the "Gold Standard"? Error Assessment Based on Differences Among Identical Blood Gas Analyzer Devices of Five Manufacturers

Hartmut Gehring, MD^*, Lutz Duembgen, PhD, Mareike Peterlein^*, Söhnke Hagelberg, MD^*, and Leif Dibbelt, PhD

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Germany; Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Clinical Chemistry, University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Germany.

Address correspondence and reprints requests to Hartmut Gehring, MD, Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Luebeck, Germany. Address e-mail to gehring{at}uni-luebeck.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The calibration and testing procedures of a pulse oximeter with arterial blood samples from healthy subjects are based on reference values from the hemoximeter. There are no tests to identify the accuracy of the reference devices. Because of this limitation and since the true values of oxygen saturation (sO₂ in %) in blood samples were not known, we used the differences between two identical devices, A and B, for error assessment.

METHODS: Two identical devices, A and B, from five leading manufacturers were investigated. Seventy-two arterial blood samples from 12 healthy volunteers at three different levels of saturation between 100% and 70% sO₂ were randomly evaluated by the test systems.

RESULTS: The observed differences () between Devices A and B, as a measure for the error of the hemoximeters, increased significantly with all manufacturers from level 97 (min, –0.9%; max, 2.6%) to 85 (min, –2.4%; max, 4.3), this effect was even stronger between levels 97 and 75 (min, –4.6%; max, 4.3%). A variance proportion analysis revealed the concentration of the reduced hemoglobin as the main error source for sO₂ measurements. Independent from the sO₂ levels there were also significant differences for the carboxy hemoglobin concentration in the range of 0%–4% and for the methemoglobin concentration in the range of 0%–1%.

CONCLUSIONS: The variance of sO₂ measurements between identical devices increased significantly when saturation decreased from the normal level of 97% to the hypoxemic levels of 85% and 75%.