title: A comparison of three pulmonary artery oximetry catheters in intensive care unit patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the clinical performance of three pulmonary artery oximetry catheters (Oximetrix 3, SAT-2, and HEMOPRO2) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Unblinded comparison of performance over 24 h using an IL-282 CO-oximeter as a criterion standard.
  
  
  METHODS
  Multispecialty adult ICU at a university teaching hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty critically ill patients selected from those requiring hemodynamic monitoring for medical management.
  
  
  RESULTS
  By all measures, performance of the Oximetrix 3 and SAT-2 systems were comparable; bias +/- precision were -1.98 +/- 3.07 and +1.80 +/- 3.49, respectively, vs -2.28 +/- 5.24 for the HEMOPRO2. The Oximetrix 3 and SAT-2 systems demonstrated consistent performance over the range of saturations tested, though Oximetrix 3 tended to underestimate and SAT-2 tended to overestimate the CO-oximeter value. The HEMOPRO2 underestimated the CO-oximetry-derived saturation, although this was not constant across the range of values tested. The 95 percent confidence limits based on intrasubject variability were similar (+/- 4.59, +/- 5.66, and +/- 6.56 for the Oximetrix 3, SAT-2, and HEMOPRO2, respectively); however, the 95 percent confidence limits based on total variability, while similar for Oximetrix 3 (+/- 6.03) and SAT-2 (+/- 6.86), were larger for the HEMOPRO2 (+/- 10.30). The expected SD was similar for the three systems (2.03, 2.50, and 2.90 for the Oximetrix 3, SAT-2, and HEMOPRO2 systems, respectively). None of the systems equaled or exceeded (p greater than 0.05) the manufacturers' published specifications, which, in all cases, are listed as +/- 2 percent (saturation; 1 SD) when compared with bench oximetry.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although each system measures mixed venous oxygen saturation, the Oximetrix 3 and SAT-2 systems demonstrate closer agreement with CO-oximetry. However, none of these catheters provided statistically significant evidence that they would perform within +/- 2 percent of CO-oximetry. As a continuous monitor used to detect changes or trends, any of the three may be acceptable.
authors.affiliation: Department of Anesthesia (Section on Critical Care), Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1009.
authors.forename: P E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Scuderi
authors.forename: D L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Bowton
authors.forename: J W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Meredith
authors.forename: L C
authors.initials: LC
authors.lastname: Harris
authors.forename: J B
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: Evans
authors.forename: R L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Anderson
mesh_terms: D002138:Calibration; D002404:Catheterization / Q000295:instrumentation*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007362:Intensive Care Units; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008991:Monitoring, Physiologic / Q000295:instrumentation; D010092:Oximetry / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000592:standards; D011651:Pulmonary Artery; D015203:Reproducibility of Results