You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Time to standardise neonatal pulse oximetry
  1. Cliodhna Godden1,2,
  2. Emily Mullan2,
  3. Helen Mactier2,3,
  4. Richard Boulton4,
  5. Martin Shaw4,
  6. Andrew Brunton1,
  7. Stephen Dacombe4,
  8. Ruth Hamilton3,4
  1. 1 Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Children Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 Neonatal Unit, Princess Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, UK
  3. 3 College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  4. 4 Department of Clinical Physics and Bioengineering, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cliodhna Godden, Neonatal Unit, Royal Hospital for Children Glasgow, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK; cliodhna.godden{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-319457

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.

    Pulse oximetry is commonly used to assess requirement for supplemental oxygen at discharge for preterm infants with confirmed or suspected chronic lung disease. Criteria for supplemental oxygen vary, with disparate devices used and no standardised assessment protocol.1 Establishing normative oximeter reference limits in healthy term newborns is a necessary prelude to establishing such values for ex-preterm infants. Published data for extended oximetry recordings in healthy newborns have typically used short (~2 s) averaging time,2 but in order to reduce alarm fatigue most units using newer generation oximeters use the longer default averaging time of 8 s.3

    We carried out overnight pulse oximetry recording using a Masimo Radical-7 device in a prospective study of healthy term newborns delivered by elective caesarean section and recruited from the postnatal wards …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • CG and EM are joint first authors.

    • Twitter @cliodhna67, @HMactier

    • Contributors EM, HM and RH developed the concept of the paper. CG implemented the research with AB. RB, MS and SD analysed the data, and CG, EM, HM and RH drafted and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors reviewed and agreed on the final manuscript.

    • Funding This study was funded by Glasgow Children's Hospital Charity.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the local research ethics committee.

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