Evaluation of Different Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Devices for Assessing Tissue Oxygenation with a Vascular Occlusion Test in Healthy Volunteers

Abstract

Near-infrared spectroscopy devices can measure peripheral tissue oxygen saturation (StO 2). This study aims to compare StO 2 using INVOS ® and different O3™ settings (O3 25:75 and O3 30:70). Twenty adults were recruited. INVOS ® and O3™ probes were placed simultaneously on 1 side of forearm. After baseline measurement, the vascular occlusion test was initiated. The baseline value, rate of deoxygenation and reoxygenation, minimum and peak StO 2 , and time from cuff release to peak value were measured. The parameters were compared using ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Bonferroni's correction and Mann-Whitney pairwise comparison were used for post hoc analysis. The agreement between StO 2 of devices was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots. IN-VOS ® baseline value was higher (79.7 ± 6.4%) than that of O3 25:75 and O3 30:70 (62.4 ± 6.0% and 63.7 ± 5.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). The deoxygenation rate was higher with IN-VOS ® (10.6 ± 2.1%/min) than with O3 25:75 and O3 30:70 (8.4 ± 2.2%/min, p = 0.006 and 7.5 ± 2.1%/min, p < 0.001). The minimum and peak StO 2 were higher with INVOS ®. No significant difference in the reoxygenation rate was found between the devices and settings. The time to reach peak after cuff deflation was faster with INVOS ® (both p < 0.001). Other parameters were similar. There were no differences between the different O3™ settings. There were differences in StO 2 measurements between the devices, and these devices should not be interchanged. Differences were not observed between O3™ device settings.

Noninvasive tracking of mixed venous oxygen saturation via near-infrared spectroscopy cerebral oximetry: a retrospective observational study

“…This seems to be reflected in the slightly higher cut-off value in the INVOS dataset for detecting significant changes in SvO 2 . A previous study comparing these two devices also reported characteristics that aligns with the current finding 16 . The study compared the two devices with vascular occlusion tests in healthy volunteers.…”

Evaluation of hyperspectral imaging to quantify perfusion changes during the modified Allen test

“…[36][37][38] Yet, an intact superficial palmary arch is also crucial before the less commonly performed ulnar forearm free flap is harvested. 41,42 Another established approach to assess the microcirculation of the hand is to use a cuff occlusion test (COT) at the upper arm, which has been widely used as a comparative test for microcirculation monitoring before [43][44][45] and has already been reported in combination with HSI on a few patients. 16,24,[46][47][48] The purpose of this study was to both, qualitatively and quantitatively assess microcirculation of the hand in healthy volunteers during both a MAT and a COT at the upper arm using HSI.…”

“…Yet, an intact superficial palmary arch is also crucial before the less commonly performed ulnar forearm free flap is harvested 41,42 . Another established approach to assess the microcirculation of the hand is to use a cuff occlusion test (COT) at the upper arm, which has been widely used as a comparative test for microcirculation monitoring before 43–45 and has already been reported in combination with HSI on a few patients 16,24,46–48 …”

Regional Cerebral Oxygen Saturation and Estimated Oxygen Extraction Ratio as Predictive Markers of Major Adverse Events in Infants with Congenital Heart Disease

“…Second, there were three NIRS instruments used for ScO 2 monitoring in the institutions, and all of the data were combined on the basis of an assumption and calibration of a certain arterial to venous volume ratio in the brain adopted in each device. However, the devices use different technologies and methods to provide cerebral oxygenation data, and several studies have shown positive correlations but disagreements between devices [33,34]. Some studies also suggested that evidence generated with one NIRS device may not be applied to other manufactures' devices [16].…”