Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 845–850 | Cite as

Does a digital regional nerve block improve the accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring?

  • Ronald D. MillerEmail author
  • Theresa A. Ward
  • Charles E. McCulloch
  • Neal H. Cohen
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Blood hemoglobin (Hb) can be continuously monitored utilizing noninvasive spectrophotometric finger sensors (Masimo SpHb). SpHb is not a consistently accurate guide to transfusion decisions when compared with laboratory Co-Oximetry (tHb). We evaluated whether a finger digital nerve block (DNB) would increase perfusion and, thereby, improve the accuracy of SpHb.

Methods

Twenty adult patients undergoing spinal surgery received a DNB with lidocaine to the finger used for the monitoring of SpHb. SpHb–tHb differences were determined immediately following the DNB and approximately every hour thereafter. These differences were compared with those in our previously reported patients (N = 20) with no DNB. The SpHb–tHb difference was defined as “very accurate” if <0.5 g/dL and “inaccurate” if >2.0 g/dL. Perfusion index (PI) values at the time of each SpHb–tHb measurement were compared.

Results

There were 57 and 78 data points in this and our previous study, respectively. The presence of a DNB resulted in 37 % of measurements having SpHb values in the “very accurate group” versus 12 % in patients without a DNB. When the PI value was >2.0, only 1 of 57 DNB values was in the “inaccurate” group. The PI values were both higher and less variable in the patients who received a DNB.

Conclusions

A DNB significantly increased the number of “very accurate” SpHb values and decreased the number of “inaccurate” values. We conclude that a DNB may facilitate the use of SpHb as a guide to transfusion decisions, particularly when the PI is >2.0.

Keywords

Anesthesia techniques regional Blood-flow-peripheral Blood-hemoglobin Blood-transfusion Measurement techniques 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Barbara A. Grimes, PhD (Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) for her statistical consultation, and James E. Caldwell, MB, ChB, Professor, and Judith Hellman, MD, Associate Professor (Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) for their scholarly review of our manuscript. The authors also thank the Masimo Corporation. This work was supported by the Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care at the University of California, San Francisco. The Masimo Corporation provided the Radical 7 Pulse Co-Oximeter with SpHb™, sensors, and software for the study.

Conflict of interest

Ronald D. Miller received honoraria from Masimo. Dr. Miller is a paid member of the Masimo Scientific Advisory Board, the manufacturer of the SpHb, and has received travel reimbursement in the past. The Masimo Corporation provided the Radical 7 Pulse Co-Oximeter with SpHb™, sensors, and software for the study. The other study investigators report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Masimo Corporation. Masimo rainbow SET Radical 7 Pulse CO-Oximeter and accessories: 501(k) summary. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K080238.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2010.
  2. 2.
    Miller RD, Ward TA, Shiboski SC, Cohen NH. A comparison of three methods of hemoglobin monitoring in patients undergoing spine surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:858–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Causey MW, Miller S, Foster A, Beekley A, Zenger D, Martin M. Validation of noninvasive hemoglobin measurements using the Masimo Radical-7 SpHb Station. Am J Surg. 2011;201:590–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkow L, Rotolo S, Mirski E. Continuous noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring during complex spine surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:1396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morey TE, Gravenstein N, Rice MJ. Assessing point-of-care hemoglobin measurement: be careful we don’t bias with bias. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:1289–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen BV, Vincent JL, Nowak E, Coat M, Paleiron N, Gouny P, Ould-Ahmed M, Guillouet M, Arvieux CC, Gueret G. The accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin measurement by multiwavelength pulse oximetry after cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:1052–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bommyr S, Svensson H, Soderstrom T, Sundkvist G, Wollmer P. Finger skin blood flow in response to indirect cooling in normal subjects and in patients before and after sympathectomy. Clin Physiol. 1998;18:103–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lange KH, Jansen T, Asghar S, Kristensen PL, Skjonnemand M, Norgaard P. Skin temperature measured by infrared thermography after specific ultrasound-guided blocking of the musculocutaneous, radial, ulnar, and median nerves in the upper extremity. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:887–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32:307–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lardi AM, Hirst C, Mortimer AJ, McCollum CN. Evaluation of the HemoCue for measuring intraoperative haemoglobin concentrations: a comparison with the Coulter Max-M. Anaesthesia. l998;53:349–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gehring H, Duembgen L, Peterlein M, Hagelberg S, Dibbelt L. Hemoximetry as the gold standard: error assessment based on differences among identical blood gas analyzer devices of five manufacturers. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:S24–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang ZW, Yang SH, Chen L, Zhu J, Tang Z. Comparison of blood counts in venous, fingertip, and arterial blood and their measurement variation. Clin Lab Haematol. 2001;23:155–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joul A, Naqvi S, Aregbeyen O, Demir S, Shander A. Accuracy of noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring in intensive care patients with very low hemoglobin. Presented at SCCM abstract 215 January 19, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamhaut L, Apriotesei R, Lejay M, Viven B, Carli P. Comparison between a new noninvasive continuous technology of spectrophotometry-based and RBC count for haemoglobin monitoring. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:3AP7–1.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrenfeld JM, Henneman JP, Sandberg WS. Impact of continuous and noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring on intraoperative blood transfusions. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meeting. 2010; LB05.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Applegate RL, Barr SJ, Collier CE, Rook JL, Mangus DB, Allard MW. Evaluation of pulse cooximetry in patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gayat E, Bodin A, Sportiello C, Boisson M, Dreyfus JF, Mathieu E, Fischler M. Performance evaluation of a noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring device. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:330–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cuffe RL. The inclusion of historical control data may reduce the power of a confirmatory study. Stat Med. 2011;12:1329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Donofrio PD, Bedlack R. Historical controls in ALS trials: a high seas rescue? Neurology. 2011;77:936–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald D. Miller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Theresa A. Ward
    • 1
  • Charles E. McCulloch
    • 2
  • Neal H. Cohen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative CareUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care and MedicineUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations