Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Inverse association between blood pressure and pulse oximetry accuracy: an observational study in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection
  1. Colin J Crooks1,
  2. Joe West1,
  3. Jo Morling1,
  4. Mark Simmonds2,
  5. Irene Juurlink2,
  6. Steve Briggs2,
  7. Simon Cruickshank2,
  8. Susan Hammond-Pears2,
  9. Dominick Shaw1,
  10. Tim Card1,
  11. Andrew W Fogarty1
  1. 1 NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2 Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andrew W Fogarty, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK; andrew.fogarty{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Pulse oximeters are a standard non-invasive tool to measure blood oxygen levels, and are used in multiple healthcare settings. It is important to understand the factors affecting their accuracy to be able to use them optimally and safely. This analysis aimed to explore the association of the measurement error of pulse oximeters with systolic BP, diastolic BP and heart rate (HR) within ranges of values commonly observed in clinical practice.

Methods The study design was a retrospective observational study of all patients admitted to a large teaching hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection from February 2020 to December 2021. Data on systolic and diastolic BPs and HR levels were available from the same time period as the pulse oximetry measurements.

Results Data were available for 3420 patients with 5927 observations of blood oxygen saturations as measured by pulse oximetry and ABG sampling within 30 min. The difference in oxygen saturation using the paired pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation difference measurements was inversely associated with systolic BP, increasing by 0.02% with each mm Hg decrease in systolic BP (95% CI 0.00% to 0.03%) over a range of 80–180 mm Hg. Inverse associations were also observed between the error for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry and with both diastolic BP (+0.03%; 95% CI 0.00% to 0.05%) and HR (+0.04%; 95% CI 0.02% to 0.06% for each unit decrease in the HR).

Conclusions Care needs to be taken in interpreting pulse oximetry measurements in patients with lower systolic and diastolic BPs, and HRs, as oxygen saturation is overestimated as BP and HR decrease. Confirmation of the oxygen saturation with an ABG may be appropriate in some clinical scenarios.

  • patient support
  • respiratory
  • assessment
  • clinical management

Data availability statement

No data are available. These data are not available for sharing as a consequence of the UK law.

This article is made freely available for personal use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

No data are available. These data are not available for sharing as a consequence of the UK law.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Edward Carlton

  • Contributors AF and DS developed the hypothesis. JW, TC, CC, IJ, SB, SH-P and SC developed the database. CC did the statistical analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AF and edited by all authors. CC is the guarantor and accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding This work was funded by the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham. The Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust also sponsored the study.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.