You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 102, Issue 5
  • Randomised crossover study comparing speed of heart rate display in newborns using ECG plus pulse oximeter versus pulse oximeter alone

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Randomised crossover study comparing speed of heart rate display in newborns using ECG plus pulse oximeter versus pulse oximeter alone
  1. Madeleine C Murphy1,2,3,
  2. Laura De Angelis4,
  3. Eoin Fitzgerald1,
  4. Lisa K McCarthy1,
  5. Colm Patrick Finbarr ODonnell1,3,2
  1. 1 Department of Neonatology, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  2. 2 School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
  3. 3 National Children’s Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland
  4. 4 Vittore Buzzi Hospital, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Prof Colm Patrick Finbarr ODonnell, Department of Neonatology, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; codonnell{at}nmh.ie

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313149

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.

    Studies report that ECG measures newborns’ heart rate (HR) more quickly1 ,2 and accurately3 than pulse oximetry (PO) in the delivery room (DR). In these studies, separate ECG and PO monitors were applied. The Philips IntelliVue X2 monitor (Philips, Eindhoven, Netherlands) incorporates ECG and Masimo PO technology (Masimo, Irvine, California, USA) and has a portable unit that may be used in the DR. This monitor displays HR faster when the ECG leads are connected to the machine before application to the infant.4 We wished to determine whether the order of application of ECG and PO affected how quickly …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MM and COD participated in study design, protocol development, submission to research ethics committee, data collection and entry, data analysis and interpretation and drafting the manuscript. LD and EF contributed to data collection. LMC contributed to study design, supervision and review prior to submission.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval Research Ethics Committee, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

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