Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
LetterCorrespondence

SpCO: Let's Not Throw the Baby Out With the Bath Water

Mike McEvoy
Respiratory Care October 2013, 58 (10) e129-e130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.02737
Mike McEvoy
Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery Albany Medical Center Albany, New York and Saratoga County Office of Emergency Services Ballston Spa, New York
PhD RN NRP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

To the editor:

I read the interesting study by Weaver et al1 and the accompanying editorial by Wilcox and Richards2 on noninvasive carbon monoxide (CO) detection in the February 2013 issue of Respiratory Care. I agree wholeheartedly with those authors that CO poisoning is an important public health concern, confounded by nonspecific symptoms that challenge diagnosticians. My experience with noninvasive measurement of carboxyhemoglobin by pulse oximetry (SpCO) with the RAD-57 (Masimo, Irvine, California), since FDA approval in 2006, both in hospital settings and in fire and emergency medical services, has been accompanied by continual improvements in both the sensitivity and specificity of the technology. As a scientist and author of protocols synthesized from available clinical evidence to guide use of SpCO by prehospital providers and firefighters,3 I would like to offer some observations on the study by Weaver and colleagues.

The purpose of the study was to provide information about the false positive rate of the RAD-57 pulse CO-oximeter.1 The manufacturer's accuracy specification is ± 3% at one standard deviation, meaning that 68% of measurements will fall within one standard deviation (± 3%), while, according to the empirical rule for normally distributed data, 33% would fall outside one standard deviation in either direction (± up to 6%). Indeed, Weaver et al found that the RAD-57 functioned within the manufacturer's published specifications. Yet the restrictive definition of a false positive chosen by Weaver and colleagues (SpCO at least 3% greater than carboxyhemoglobin [COHb] or SpCO > 6% with a COHb ≤ 6% in a non-smoker) did not reflect the same accuracy specification. In fact, this definition was tighter than that in an early study by Touger et al,4 who reported a 48% device sensitivity in 120 patients, and a recent study of 1,578 patients by Roth et al,5 that yielded a 94% sensitivity.

As Weaver suggests, the reference CO-oximeters also have an accuracy specification that most certainly may have influenced the comparisons between the RAD-57's SpCO readings and the laboratory COHb values. Not cited, but a potential explanation for the findings of Weaver et al is the work of Mahoney and colleagues, who compared CO-oximetry to gas chromatography, and found that the CO-oximeters typically under-reported COHb at values above 2.5%, and over-reported COHb at values below 2.5%.6

Lastly, Weaver et al reported on 3 occult CO poisoning cases in non-smokers with measured SpCO values of 0% but COHb values of > 10%. While those are not false positives, that discrepancy is certainly disconcerting and suggestive of false negatives, despite the correct assertion by Weaver et al that their study lacked the power to determine a false negative rate. I believe this highlights a key issue, discussed by Weaver et al, involving technician technique. The RAD-57 operator's manual7 highlights several important characteristics of SpCO technology that can cause erroneous readings: selection of correct sensor size, sensor placement, and ambient light. As described in the operator's manual, I have observed that misplacement of the sensor, or use of a regular sensor on a very slender digit, appears to allow some of the multiple wavelengths of light to completely bypass the digit, resulting in a zero SpCO reading, while others pass through the digit, yielding accurate heart rate and oxygen saturation values. While I have found that firefighters and emergency medical services providers who are frequent users of SpCO are well acquainted with both sensor placement and ambient light issues, it has not been my experience that our colleagues in the clinical community share that understanding of the operating characteristics of SpCO. Since the introduction of the RAD-57 in 2006 there have been multiple improvements in the sensor design. It is my understanding that Masimo has included finger misalignment recognition in the most recent sensor version.

I fondly remember the first portable pulse oximeters that appeared in hospital wards and ambulances in the early 1980s. These were very temperamental devices, subject to interference from motion, low perfusion, ambient light, electrical current fluctuations, and calibration drift. Their sensitivity and specificity were initially terrible,8 but reached ± 3% by the 1990s. There were no calls suggesting that pulse oximetry had insufficient evidence for broad clinical use, as Wilcox and Richards suggested about SpCO.2 Rather, clinicians embraced pulse oximetry, with its inherent limitations, as a valuable tool. Certainly, no modern-day clinician would base their assessment of pulse oximetry on its first-generation technology. Likewise, I would encourage readers to recognize that SpCO was born in 2006 and offers a valuable and continually improving screening tool for CO poisoning.9 The variability of the results reported in the literature reflects the evolution of the technology and in clinician understanding of how to use it. No screening device should be used in isolation when making patient care decisions. Clinical assessment and confirmation of suspicions with appropriate laboratory testing is imperative, as Weaver et al aptly point out.

Despite years of serum potassium measurement in laboratories around the world, blood collection (phlebotomy) and laboratory error remain the leading causes of erroneously reported hyperkalemia.10 There can be no substitute for clinician judgment and insight into the proper operation of medical equipment. To believe that any instrument used by humans will completely correct for operator error is wishful thinking, at best. The RAD-57, like any medical device, can suffer from operator error. Rather than condemning a new technology, I would suggest we strive to educate users on its proper operation and limitations, work with manufacturers to improve accuracy, and be certain not to overly rely on technology in lieu of clinical assessment and judgment.

Footnotes

  • Mr McEvoy has disclosed relationships with Masimo and Physio-Control.

  • Copyright © 2013 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Weaver LK,
    2. Churchill SK,
    3. Deru K,
    4. Cooney D
    . False positive rate of carbon monoxide saturation by pulse oximetry of emergency department patients. Respir Care 2013;58(2):232–240.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wilcox SR,
    2. Richards JB
    . Noninvasive carbon monoxide detection: insufficient evidence for broad clinical use. Respir Care 2013;58(2):376–379.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. McEvoy M
    . Sneak attack: what makes carbon monoxide so insidious? JEMS 2010;10(Suppl):4–9.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Touger M,
    2. Birnbaum A,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Chou K,
    5. Pearson D,
    6. Bijur P
    . Performance of the RAD-57 pulse co-oximeter compared with standard laboratory carboxyhemoglobin measurement. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56(4):382–388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Roth D,
    2. Herkner H,
    3. Schreiber W,
    4. Hubmann N,
    5. Gamper G,
    6. Laggner AN,
    7. Havel C
    . Accuracy of noninvasive multiwave pulse oximetry compared with carboxyhemoglobin from blood gas analysis in unselected emergency department patients. Ann Emerg Med 2011;58(1):74–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mahoney JJ,
    2. Vreman HJ,
    3. Stevenson DK,
    4. Van Kessel AL
    . Measurement of carboxyhemoglobin and total hemoglobin by five specialized spectrophotometers (CO-oximeters) in comparison with reference methods. Clin Chem 1993;39(8):1693–1700.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Masimo Corporation. RAD-57 operator's manual. Masimo Rainbow SET signal extraction pulse CO-oximeter. 2006.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Severinghaus JW,
    2. Kelleher JF
    . Recent developments in pulse oximetry. Anesthesiology 1992;76(6):1018–1038.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bledsoe B,
    2. McEvoy M
    . Where there's CO; there's not always fire: how pulse CO-oximetry serves as an important assessment and triage tool. JEMS 2009;34:5–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Stankovic AK,
    2. Smith S
    . Elevated serum potassium values: the role of preanalytic values. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121(Suppl 1):S105–S112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 58 (10)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 58, Issue 10
1 Oct 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Monthly Podcast

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
SpCO: Let's Not Throw the Baby Out With the Bath Water
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
SpCO: Let's Not Throw the Baby Out With the Bath Water
Mike McEvoy
Respiratory Care Oct 2013, 58 (10) e129-e130; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02737

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
SpCO: Let's Not Throw the Baby Out With the Bath Water
Mike McEvoy
Respiratory Care Oct 2013, 58 (10) e129-e130; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02737
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire