Skip to main content

Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Toffaletti, J; Zijlstra, WG
Published in: Anesth Analg
December 2007

BACKGROUND: We describe some misconceptions that have become common practice in reporting blood gas and cooximetry results. In 1980, oxygen saturation was incorrectly redefined in a report of a new instrument for analysis of hemoglobin (Hb) derivatives. Oxygen saturation (sO2) was redefined as the ratio of oxyhemoglobin (O2Hb) to total Hb instead of the ratio of O2Hb to active Hb (O2Hb + desoxyhemoglobin). In addition, the new terms "functional saturation" and "fractional saturation" were introduced. Since the new parameter was implemented in a widely used cooximeter, its use is now widespread and has caused misunderstandings. METHODS: In this report, we review the development of the definitions and measurements of sO2 and related quantities and contend that the misconceptions should be resolved by standardizing instrument read-outs and clinical reports, so that sO2, defined as the ratio of O2Hb to active Hb, should replace FO2Hb and be reported along with the total Hb concentration and the common dyshemoglobin fractions (%CO-Hb and % methemoglobin [metHb]). RESULTS: The redefinition of sO2 as the %O2Hb or FO2Hb did not address the confusion that might result from interchanging these two often-similar but different terms. The term fractional saturation is an inappropriate terminology and lacks clear physiological meaning. We see frequent cases of confusion: (a) the difference between the sO2 in pulse oximetry and the FO2Hb in cooximetry is called the "pulse oximeter gap;" (b) sO2 results are described as "method dependent;" and (c) reference ranges for these terms are substituted. CONCLUSIONS: Although either parameter could be used by clinicians who fully understand the relatively simple difference between these parameters, we find clear evidence that there is widespread confusion of these terms, even among experts in the field. Standardization of the reporting format would help, and instrument manufacturers could contribute by standardizing the reporting format for cooximetry results.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Anesth Analg

DOI

EISSN

1526-7598

Publication Date

December 2007

Volume

105

Issue

6 Suppl

Start / End Page

S5 / S9

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Terminology as Topic
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Oxyhemoglobins
  • Oxygen
  • Oximetry
  • Models, Cardiovascular
  • Humans
  • Anesthesiology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1109 Neurosciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Toffaletti, J., & Zijlstra, W. G. (2007). Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation. Anesth Analg, 105(6 Suppl), S5–S9. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000278741.29274.e1
Toffaletti, John, and Willem G. Zijlstra. “Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation.Anesth Analg 105, no. 6 Suppl (December 2007): S5–9. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000278741.29274.e1.
Toffaletti J, Zijlstra WG. Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation. Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6 Suppl):S5–9.
Toffaletti, John, and Willem G. Zijlstra. “Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation.Anesth Analg, vol. 105, no. 6 Suppl, Dec. 2007, pp. S5–9. Pubmed, doi:10.1213/01.ane.0000278741.29274.e1.
Toffaletti J, Zijlstra WG. Misconceptions in reporting oxygen saturation. Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6 Suppl):S5–S9.

Published In

Anesth Analg

DOI

EISSN

1526-7598

Publication Date

December 2007

Volume

105

Issue

6 Suppl

Start / End Page

S5 / S9

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Terminology as Topic
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Oxyhemoglobins
  • Oxygen
  • Oximetry
  • Models, Cardiovascular
  • Humans
  • Anesthesiology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1109 Neurosciences