Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37801355›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Evaluation of a Portable Blood Gas Analyzer for Prehospital Triage in Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Instrument Validation Study.

Matthieu Lyon, Christophe Alain Fehlmann, Marc Augsburger, Thomas Schaller, Catherine Zimmermann-Ivol, Julien Celi, Birgit Andrea Gartner, Nicolas Lorenzon, François Sarasin, Laurent Suppan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthieu LyonDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6507-0865
Christophe Alain FehlmannDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4163-0338
Marc AugsburgerUnit of Forensic Toxicology and Chemistry, University Center of Legal Medicine, Lausanne-Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5606-3831
Thomas SchallerDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5502-0055
Catherine Zimmermann-IvolDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8631-6812
Julien CeliDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-8908
Birgit Andrea GartnerDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-3201
Nicolas LorenzonDivision of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6356-9818
François SarasinDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-8526
Laurent SuppanDivision of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6989-6421
University of Geneva · CHUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity Centre of Legal Medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Symptoms are mostly aspecific, making it hard to identify, and its diagnosis is usually made through blood gas analysis. However, the bulkiness of gas analyzers prevents them from being used at the scene of the incident, thereby leading to the unnecessary transport and admission of many patients. While multiple-wavelength pulse oximeters have been developed to discriminate carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) from oxyhemoglobin, their reliability is debatable, particularly in the hostile prehospital environment.

objectiveThe main objective of this pilot study was to assess whether the Avoximeter 4000, a transportable blood gas analyzer, could be considered for prehospital triage.

methodsThis was a monocentric, prospective, pilot evaluation study. Blood samples were analyzed sequentially with 2 devices: the Avoximeter 4000 (experimental), which performs direct measurements on blood samples of about 50 µL by analyzing light absorption at 5 different wavelengths; and the ABL827 FLEX (control), which measures COHb levels through an optical system composed of a 128-wavelength spectrophotometer. The blood samples belonged to 2 different cohorts: the first (clinical cohort) was obtained in an emergency department and consisted of 68 samples drawn from patients admitted for reasons other than CO poisoning. These samples were used to determine whether the Avoximeter 4000 could properly exclude the diagnosis. The second (forensic) cohort was derived from the regional forensic center, which provided 12 samples from documented CO poisoning.

resultsThe mean COHb level in the clinical cohort was 1.7% (SD 1.8%; median 1.2%, IQR 0.7%-1.9%) with the ABL827 FLEX versus 3.5% (SD 2.3%; median 3.1%, IQR 2.2%-4.1%) with the Avoximeter 4000. Therefore, the Avoximeter 4000 overestimated COHb levels by a mean difference of 1.8% (95% CI 1.5%-2.1%). The consistency of COHb readings by the Avoximeter 4000 was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-0.99) when the same blood sample was analyzed repeatedly. Using prespecified cutoffs (5% in nonsmokers and 10% in smokers), 3 patients (4%) had high COHb levels according to the Avoximeter 4000, while their values were within the normal range according to the ABL827 FLEX. Therefore, the specificity of the Avoximeter 4000 in this cohort was 95.6% (95% CI 87%-98.6%), and the overtriage rate would have been 4.4% (95% CI 1.4%-13%). Regarding the forensic samples, 10 of 12 (83%) samples were positive with both devices, while the 2 remaining samples were negative with both devices.

conclusionsThe limited difference in COHb level measurements between the Avoximeter 4000 and the control device, which erred on the side of safety, and the relatively low overtriage rate warrant further exploration of this device as a prehospital triage tool.

Indexed as

Avoximeter 4000blood gasblood workcarbon monoxidecarbon monoxide intoxicationcarbon monoxide poisoningcohort studyCO-oximetrymedical deviceoximeterpilot studypoisoningprehospital triagepulse oximetersensortriagetriage tool

Identifiers

PMID37801355
PMCPMC10589834
OpenAlexW4386335545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.